AI Coding Unity

AI Coding Unity — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Excalidraw

Excalidraw is an open-source, web-based virtual whiteboard and diagramming application. It is used to create diagrams, wireframes, and sketches within a web browser without requiring account registration. The software features a characteristic hand-drawn visual style and supports real-time multi-user collaboration using client-side end-to-end encryption. Excalidraw is released under the MIT License and is maintained by Excalidraw s.r.o., a company based in Brno, Czech Republic. == History == Excalidraw was created on 1 January 2020 by Christopher Chedeau, a software engineer at Meta Platforms. Chedeau, who previously co-created React Native and Prettier, initially developed the application as a personal project before registering the domain on 3 January 2020. Within its first months, the project attracted open-source contributors who assisted in expanding its features and rewriting the codebase into TypeScript and React. By early 2021, day-to-day operations moved to Czech developers David Luzar and Milos Vetesnik. In May 2021, the team incorporated Excalidraw s.r.o. in Brno and launched a commercial cloud-based version named Excalidraw+ to fund the open-source project's development. By May 2026, the main open-source repository on GitHub had accumulated over 123,000 stars. == Features and architecture == The application provides an infinite canvas for geometric shapes, lines, arrows, text, and freehand drawing. Its visual presentation relies on Rough.js, a JavaScript graphics library that alters standard vector paths to mimic irregular, hand-drawn lines. Excalidraw operates as a Progressive web application (PWA), allowing local installation and offline usage, saving data natively to local browser storage. Files use a native, JSON-based extension format (.excalidraw), and canvases can be exported to PNG or SVG formats. Real-time collaboration sessions are executed using Socket.IO via a relay server. Data transmission uses the browser's native Web Cryptography API to achieve end-to-end encryption. A symmetric AES key is generated on the client side and appended to the sharing URL as a fragment identifier (following the # character). Because web browsers do not transmit URL fragments to HTTP servers, the data remains unreadable to the distribution server. == Ecosystem == Excalidraw is distributed as an npm package, allowing third-party developers to embed the whiteboard component directly into external React web applications. Community-developed extensions integrate the application's file format into text editors and note-taking systems, including Visual Studio Code and Obsidian. The platform also has native integrations in commercial platforms such as Notion and HackerRank. == Reception == Google's developer relations team published a technical case study on Excalidraw as a reference implementation for Progressive Web Apps. The analysis highlighted the software's adoption of advanced web platform capabilities, specifically its utilization of the File System Access API and native Clipboard API to replicate desktop software behavior within a web browser environment.
Read more →
Horovod (machine learning)

Horovod is a free and open-source distributed deep learning training framework for TensorFlow, Keras, PyTorch and Apache MXNet. It is designed to scale existing single-GPU training scripts to efficiently run on multiple GPUs and computer nodes with minimal code changes, using synchronous data-parallel training based on the ring-allreduce communication pattern. Horovod was initially developed at Uber and released as an open-source project in 2017, and is now hosted by the LF AI & Data Foundation, a project of the Linux Foundation. == History == Horovod was created at Uber as part of the company's internal machine learning platform Michelangelo to simplify scaling TensorFlow models across many GPUs. The first public release of the library, version 0.9.0, was tagged on GitHub in August 2017 under the Apache 2.0 licence. In October 2017, Uber Engineering publicly introduced Horovod as an open-source component of its deep learning toolkit. In February 2018 Alexander Sergeev and Mike Del Balso published a technical paper describing Horovod's design and benchmarking its performance on up to 512 GPUs, showing near-linear scaling for several image-classification models when compared with single-GPU baselines. In December 2018 Uber contributed Horovod to the LF Deep Learning Foundation (later LF AI & Data), making it a Linux Foundation project. Horovod entered incubation under LF AI & Data and graduated as a full foundation project in 2020. Since its initial release the project has expanded beyond TensorFlow to provide APIs for PyTorch, Keras and Apache MXNet, as well as integrations with frameworks such as Apache Spark and Ray, support for elastic training, and tooling for automated performance tuning and profiling. == Design and features == Horovod core principles are based on the MPI concepts size, rank, local rank, allreduce, allgather, broadcast, and alltoall. Horovod implements synchronous data-parallel training, in which each worker process maintains a replica of the model and computes gradients on different mini-batches of data. The gradients are aggregated across workers using the ring-allreduce communication pattern rather than a central parameter server, which reduces communication bottlenecks and can improve scaling on multi-GPU clusters. Communication is built on top of collective-communication libraries such as MPI, NCCL, Gloo and Intel oneCCL, and supports both GPU and CPU training. In the benchmark experiments reported in the original paper, Horovod achieved around 90% scaling efficiency on 512 GPUs for the ResNet-101 and Inception v3 convolutional neural networks, and around 68% scaling efficiency for the VGG-16 model. Horovod can be deployed on-premises or in cloud environments and is distributed as a Python package with optional GPU support via CUDA. The official documentation provides guides for running Horovod with Docker, Kubernetes (including via Kubeflow and the MPI Operator), commercial platforms such as Databricks, and cluster schedulers such as LSF. == Adoption and use cases == Within Uber, Horovod has been used for applications including autonomous driving research, fraud detection and trip forecasting. Major cloud providers have integrated Horovod into their managed machine learning offerings. Amazon Web Services supports distributed training with Horovod in services such as Amazon SageMaker and AWS Deep Learning Containers, while Microsoft Azure documents Horovod-based training workflows for Azure Synapse Analytics. Technical guides from academic and research computing centres, including Purdue University and the NASA Advanced Supercomputing programme, describe Horovod-based workflows for multi-GPU training on supercomputers and clusters. Horovod is also used in conjunction with Apache Spark and dedicated storage systems as part of end-to-end data processing and model-training pipelines. Industry blogs and technical tutorials describe deployments of Horovod on Kubernetes, on-premises clusters and cloud-managed Kubernetes services such as Amazon EKS.
Read more →
Feigenbaum test

A Feigenbaum test is a variation of the Turing test where a computer system attempts to replicate an expert in a given field such as chemistry or marketing. It is also known, as a subject matter expert Turing test and was proposed by Edward Feigenbaum in a 2003 paper. The concept is also described by Ray Kurzweil in his 2005 book The Singularity is Near. Kurzweil argues that machines who pass this test are an inevitable consequence of Moore's Law.
Read more →
Brain.js

Brain.js is a JavaScript library used for neural networking, which is released as free and open-source software under the MIT License. It can be used in both the browser and Node.js backends. Brain.js is most commonly used as a simple introduction to neural networking, as it hides complex mathematics and has a familiar modern JavaScript syntax. It is maintained by members of the Brain.js organization and open-source contributors. == Examples == Creating a feedforward neural network with backpropagation: Creating a recurrent neural network: Train the neural network on RGB color contrast:
Read more →
ChatGPT

ChatGPT is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by OpenAI. Originally released in November 2022, the product uses large language models—specifically generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs)—to generate text, speech, and images in response to user prompts. ChatGPT accelerated the AI boom, an ongoing period marked by rapid investment and public attention toward the field of artificial intelligence (AI). OpenAI operates the service on a freemium model. Users can interact with ChatGPT through text, audio, and image prompts. ChatGPT was quickly adopted, reaching 100 million monthly active users two months after its release and 900 million weekly active users in February 2026. It has been lauded for its potential to transform numerous professional fields, and has instigated public debate about the nature of creativity and the future of knowledge work. The chatbot has also been criticized for its limitations and potential for unethical use. It can generate plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers, known as hallucinations. Biases in its training data have been reflected in its responses. The chatbot can facilitate academic dishonesty, generate misinformation, and create malicious code. The ethics of its development, particularly the use of copyrighted content as training data, have also drawn controversy. == Features == ChatGPT is a chatbot and AI assistant built on large language model (LLM) technology. It is designed to generate human-like text and can carry out a wide variety of tasks. These include, among many others, writing and debugging computer programs, composing music, scripts, fairy tales, and essays, answering questions (sometimes at a level exceeding that of an average human test-taker), and generating business concepts. ChatGPT is frequently used for translation and summarization tasks, and can simulate interactive environments such as a Linux terminal, a multi-user chat room, or simple text-based games such as tic-tac-toe. Users interact with ChatGPT through conversations which consist of text, audio, and image inputs and outputs. The user's inputs to these conversations are referred to as prompts. An optional "Memory" feature allows users to tell ChatGPT to memorize specific information. Another option allows ChatGPT to recall old conversations. GPT-based moderation classifiers are used to reduce the risk of harmful outputs being presented to users. In March 2023, OpenAI added support for plugins for ChatGPT. This includes both plugins made by OpenAI, such as web browsing and code interpretation, and external plugins from developers such as Expedia, OpenTable, and Zapier. From October to December 2024, ChatGPT Search was deployed. It allows ChatGPT to search the web in an attempt to make more accurate and up-to-date responses. It increased OpenAI's direct competition with major search engines. OpenAI allows businesses to tailor how their content appears in the ChatGPT Search results and influence what sources are used. In December 2024, OpenAI launched a new feature allowing users to call ChatGPT with a telephone for up to 15 minutes per month for free. In September 2025, OpenAI added a feature called Pulse, which generates a daily analysis of a user's chats and connected apps such as Gmail and Google Calendar. In October 2025, OpenAI launched ChatGPT Atlas, a browser integrating the ChatGPT assistant directly into web navigation, to compete with existing browsers such as Google Chrome. It has an additional feature called "agentic mode" that allows it to take online actions for the user. === Paid tier === ChatGPT was initially free to the public and remains free in a limited capacity. In February 2023, OpenAI launched a premium service, ChatGPT Plus, that costs US$20 per month. What was offered on the paid plan versus the free tier changed as OpenAI has continued to update ChatGPT, and a Pro tier at $200/mo was introduced in December 2024. The Pro launch coincided with the release of the o1 model. In August 2025, ChatGPT Go was offered in India for ₹399 per month. The plan has higher limits than the free version. === Mobile apps === In May-July 2023, OpenAI began offering ChatGPT iOS and Android apps. ChatGPT can also power Android's assistant. An app for Windows launched on the Microsoft Store on October 15, 2024. === Languages === OpenAI met Icelandic President Guðni Th. Jóhannesson in 2022. In 2023, OpenAI worked with a team of 40 Icelandic volunteers to fine-tune ChatGPT's Icelandic conversation skills as a part of Iceland's attempts to preserve the Icelandic language. ChatGPT (based on GPT-4) was better able to translate Japanese to English when compared to Bing, Bard, and DeepL Translator in 2023. In December 2023, the Albanian government decided to use ChatGPT for the rapid translation of European Union documents and the analysis of required changes needed for Albania's accession to the EU. Several studies have shown that ChatGPT can outperform Google Translate in some mainstream translation tasks. However, as of 2024, no machine translation services match human expert performance. In August 2024, a representative of the Asia Pacific wing of OpenAI made a visit to Taiwan, during which a demonstration of ChatGPT's Chinese abilities was made. ChatGPT's Mandarin Chinese abilities were lauded, but the ability of the AI to produce content in Mandarin Chinese in a Taiwanese accent was found to be "less than ideal" due to differences between mainland Mandarin Chinese and Taiwanese Mandarin. === GPT Store === In November 2023, OpenAI released GPT Builder, a tool allowing users to customize ChatGPT's behavior for a specific use case. The customized systems are referred to as GPTs. In January 2024, OpenAI launched the GPT Store, a marketplace for GPTs. At launch, OpenAI included more than 3 million GPTs created by GPT Builder users in the GPT Store. === ChatGPT Apps === In September 2025, OpenAI added support for Model Context Protocol (MCP) to ChatGPT apps. When enabled in developer mode, this allows for improved third-party access to ChatGPT tools and servers. === Deep Research === In February 2025, OpenAI released Deep Research, a feature that generates reports based on extensive web searches. It was initially based on the reasoning model o3 and took 5 to 30 minutes per report. === Images === In October 2023, OpenAI's image generation model DALL-E 3 was integrated into ChatGPT. The integration used ChatGPT to write prompts for DALL-E guided by conversations with users. In March 2025, OpenAI updated ChatGPT to generate images using GPT Image instead of DALL-E. One of the most significant improvements was in the generation of text within images, which is especially useful for branded content. However, this ability is noticeably worse in non-Latin alphabets. The model can also generate new images based on existing ones provided in the prompt. These images are generated with C2PA metadata, which can be used to verify that they are AI-generated. OpenAI has emplaced additional safeguards to prevent what the company deems to be harmful image generation. === Agents === In 2025, OpenAI added several features to make ChatGPT more agentic (capable of autonomously performing longer tasks). In January, Operator was released. It was capable of autonomously performing tasks through web browser interactions, including filling forms, placing online orders, scheduling appointments, and other browser-based tasks. It was controlling a software environment inside a virtual machine with limited internet connectivity and with safety restrictions. It struggled with complex user interfaces. In May 2025, OpenAI introduced an agent for coding named Codex. It is capable of writing software, answering codebase questions, running tests, and proposing pull requests. It is based on a fine-tuned version of OpenAI o3. It has two versions, one running in a virtual machine in the cloud, and one where the agent runs in the cloud, but performs actions on a local machine connected via API. In July 2025, OpenAI released ChatGPT agent, an AI agent that can perform multi-step tasks. Like Operator, it controls a virtual computer. It also inherits from Deep Research's ability to gather and summarize significant volumes of information. The user can interrupt tasks or provide additional instructions as needed. In September 2025, OpenAI partnered with Stripe, Inc. to release Agentic Commerce Protocol, enabling purchases through ChatGPT. At launch, the feature was limited to purchases on Etsy from US users with a payment method linked to their OpenAI account. OpenAI takes an undisclosed cut from the merchant's payment. === ChatGPT Health === On January 7, 2026, OpenAI introduced a feature called "ChatGPT Health", whereby ChatGPT can discuss the user's health in a way that is separate from other chats. The feature is not available for users in the United Kingdom, Switzerland, or the European Economic Area, and is available on a waitli
Read more →
Dataism

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

Existential risk from artificial intelligence, or AI x-risk, refers to the idea that substantial progress in artificial general intelligence (AGI) and artificial superintelligence (ASI) could lead to human extinction or an irreversible global catastrophe. One argument for the validity of this concern and the importance of this risk references how human beings dominate other species because the human brain possesses distinctive capabilities other animals lack. If AI were to surpass human intelligence and become superintelligent, it might become uncontrollable. Just as the fate of the mountain gorilla depends on human goodwill, the fate of humanity could depend on the actions of a future machine superintelligence. Experts disagree on whether artificial general intelligence (AGI) can achieve the capabilities needed for human extinction. Debates center on AGI's technical feasibility, the speed of self-improvement, and the effectiveness of alignment strategies. Concerns about superintelligence have been voiced by researchers including Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis, and Alan Turing, and AI company CEOs such as Dario Amodei (Anthropic), Sam Altman (OpenAI), and Elon Musk (xAI). In 2022, a survey of AI researchers with a 17% response rate found that the majority believed there is a 10 percent or greater chance that human inability to control AI will cause an existential catastrophe. In 2023, hundreds of AI experts and other notable figures signed a statement declaring, "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war". Following increased concern over AI risks, government leaders such as United Kingdom prime minister Rishi Sunak and United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres called for an increased focus on global AI regulation. In 2025, hundreds of public figures including AI experts, five Nobel Prize laureates, and former senior US national security officials such as Michael Mullen and Susan Rice signed a statement calling for a ban on the development of superintelligence. Two sources of concern stem from the problems of AI control and alignment. Controlling a superintelligent machine or instilling it with human-compatible values may be difficult. Many researchers believe that a superintelligent machine would likely resist attempts to disable it or change its goals as that would prevent it from accomplishing its present goals. It would be extremely challenging to align a superintelligence with the full breadth of significant human values and constraints. In contrast, skeptics such as computer scientist Yann LeCun argue that superintelligent machines will have no desire for self-preservation. A June 2025 study showed that in some circumstances, models may break laws and disobey direct commands to prevent shutdown or replacement, even at the cost of human lives. Researchers warn that an "intelligence explosion"—a rapid, recursive cycle of AI self-improvement—could outpace human oversight and infrastructure, leaving no opportunity to implement safety measures. In this scenario, an AI more intelligent than its creators would recursively improve itself at an exponentially increasing rate, too quickly for its handlers or society at large to control. Empirically, examples like AlphaZero, which taught itself to play Go and quickly surpassed human ability, show that domain-specific AI systems can sometimes progress from subhuman to superhuman ability very quickly, although such machine learning systems do not recursively improve their fundamental architecture. == History == One of the earliest authors to express serious concern that highly advanced machines might pose existential risks to humanity was the novelist Samuel Butler, who wrote in his 1863 essay Darwin among the Machines: The upshot is simply a question of time, but that the time will come when the machines will hold the real supremacy over the world and its inhabitants is what no person of a truly philosophic mind can for a moment question. In 1951, foundational computer scientist Alan Turing wrote the article "Intelligent Machinery, A Heretical Theory", in which he proposed that artificial general intelligences would likely "take control" of the world as they became more intelligent than human beings: Let us now assume, for the sake of argument, that [intelligent] machines are a genuine possibility, and look at the consequences of constructing them... There would be no question of the machines dying, and they would be able to converse with each other to sharpen their wits. At some stage therefore we should have to expect the machines to take control, in the way that is mentioned in Samuel Butler's Erewhon. In 1965, I. J. Good originated the concept now known as an "intelligence explosion" and said the risks were underappreciated: Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an 'intelligence explosion', and the intelligence of man would be left far behind. Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control. It is curious that this point is made so seldom outside of science fiction. It is sometimes worthwhile to take science fiction seriously. Scholars such as Marvin Minsky and I. J. Good himself occasionally expressed concern that a superintelligence could seize control, but issued no call to action. In 2000, computer scientist and Sun co-founder Bill Joy penned an influential essay, "Why The Future Doesn't Need Us", identifying superintelligent robots as a high-tech danger to human survival, alongside nanotechnology and engineered bioplagues. Nick Bostrom published Superintelligence in 2014, which presented his arguments that superintelligence poses an existential threat. By 2015, public figures such as physicists Stephen Hawking and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek, computer scientists Stuart J. Russell and Roman Yampolskiy, and entrepreneurs Elon Musk and Bill Gates were expressing concern about the risks of superintelligence. Also in 2015, the Open Letter on Artificial Intelligence highlighted the "great potential of AI" and encouraged more research on how to make it robust and beneficial. In April 2016, the journal Nature warned: "Machines and robots that outperform humans across the board could self-improve beyond our control—and their interests might not align with ours". In 2020, Brian Christian published The Alignment Problem, which details the history of progress on AI alignment up to that time. In March 2023, key figures in AI, such as Musk, signed a letter from the Future of Life Institute calling a halt to advanced AI training until it could be properly regulated. In May 2023, the Center for AI Safety released a statement signed by numerous experts in AI safety and the AI existential risk that read: Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war. A 2025 open letter by the Future of Life Institute, whose signers include five Nobel Prize laureates, reads: We call for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence, not lifted before there is broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably, and strong public buy-in. == Potential AI capabilities == === General Intelligence === Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is typically defined as a system that performs at least as well as humans in most or all intellectual tasks. A 2022 survey of AI researchers found that 90% of respondents expected AGI would be achieved in the next 100 years, and half expected the same by 2061. In May 2023, some researchers dismissed existential risks from AGI as "science fiction" based on their high confidence that AGI would not be created anytime soon. But in August 2023, a survey of 2,778 AI researchers found that most believed that AGI would be achieved by 2040. Breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) have led some researchers to reassess their expectations. Notably, Geoffrey Hinton said in 2023 that he recently changed his estimate from "20 to 50 years before we have general purpose A.I." to "20 years or less". === Superintelligence === In contrast with AGI, Bostrom defines a superintelligence as "any intellect that greatly exceeds the cognitive performance of humans in virtually all domains of interest", including scientific creativity, strategic planning, and social skills. He argues that a superintelligence can outmaneuver humans anytime its goals conflict with humans'. It may choose to hide its true intent until humanity cannot stop it. Bostrom writes that in order to be safe for
Read more →
Computational creativity

Computational creativity (also known as artificial creativity, mechanical creativity, creative computing or creative computation) is a multidisciplinary endeavour that is located at the intersection of the fields of artificial intelligence, cognitive psychology, philosophy, and the arts (e.g., computational art as part of computational culture). Is the application of computer systems to emulate human-like creative processes, facilitating the generation of artistic and design outputs that mimic innovation and originality. The goal of computational creativity is to model, simulate or replicate creativity using a computer, to achieve one of several ends: To construct a program or computer capable of human-level creativity. To better understand human creativity and to formulate an algorithmic perspective on creative behavior in humans. To design programs that can enhance human creativity without necessarily being creative themselves. The field of computational creativity concerns itself with theoretical and practical issues in the study of creativity. Theoretical work on the nature and proper definition of creativity is performed in parallel with practical work on the implementation of systems that exhibit creativity, with one strand of work informing the other. The applied form of computational creativity is known as media synthesis. == Theoretical issues == Theoretical approaches concern the essence of creativity. Especially, under what circumstances it is possible to call the model a "creative" if eminent creativity is about rule-breaking or the disavowal of convention. This is a variant of Ada Lovelace's objection to machine intelligence, as recapitulated by modern theorists such as Teresa Amabile. If a machine can do only what it was programmed to do, how can its behavior ever be called creative? Indeed, not all computer theorists would agree with the premise that computers can only do what they are programmed to do—a key point in favor of computational creativity. == Defining creativity in computational terms == Because no single perspective or definition seems to offer a complete picture of creativity, the AI researchers Newell, Shaw and Simon developed the combination of novelty and usefulness into the cornerstone of a multi-pronged view of creativity, one that uses the following four criteria to categorize a given answer or solution as creative: The answer is novel and useful (either for the individual or for society) The answer demands that we reject ideas we had previously accepted The answer results from intense motivation and persistence The answer comes from clarifying a problem that was originally vague Margaret Boden focused on the first two of these criteria, arguing instead that creativity (at least when asking whether computers could be creative) should be defined as "the ability to come up with ideas or artifacts that are new, surprising, and valuable". Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi argued that creativity had to be considered instead in a social context, and his DIFI (Domain-Individual-Field Interaction) framework has since strongly influenced the field. In DIFI, an individual produces works whose novelty and value are assessed by the field—other people in society—providing feedback and ultimately adding the work, now deemed creative, to the domain of societal works from which an individual might be later influenced. Whereas the above reflects a top-down approach to computational creativity, an alternative thread has developed among bottom-up computational psychologists involved in artificial neural network research. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, for example, such generative neural systems were driven by genetic algorithms. Experiments involving recurrent nets were successful in hybridizing simple musical melodies and predicting listener expectations. == Historical evolution of computational creativity == The use computational processes to generate creative artifacts has been present from early times in history. During the late 1800's, methods for composing music combinatorily were explored, involving prominent figures like Mozart, Bach, Haydn, and Kiernberger. This approach extended to analytical endeavors as early as 1934, where simple mechanical models were built to explore mathematical problem solving. Professional interest in the creative aspect of computation also was commonly addressed in early discussions of artificial intelligence. The 1956 Dartmouth Conference, listed creativity, invention, and discovery as key goals for artificial intelligence. As the development of computers allowed systems of greater complexity, the 1970's and 1980's saw invention of early systems that modelled creativity using symbolic or rule-based approaches. The field of creative storytelling investigated several such models. Meehan's TALE-SPIN (1977) generated narratives through simulation of character goals and decision trees. Dehn's AUTHOR (1981) approached generation by simulating an author's process for crafting a story. Beyond narrative generation, computational creativity expanded into artistic and scientific domains. Artistic image generation was one of the disciplines that saw early potential in generated artifacts through computational creativity. One of the most prominent examples was Harold Cohen's AARON, which produced art through composition and adaptation of figures based on a large set of symbolic rules and heuristics for visual composition. Some systems also tackled creativity in scientific endeavors. BACON was said to rediscover natural laws like Boyle's Law and Kepler's law through hypothesis testing in constrained spaces. By the 1990's the modeling techniques became more adaptive, attempting to implement cognitive creative rules for generation. Turner's MINSTREL (1993) introduced TRAMs (Transform Recall Adapt Methods) to simulate creative re-use of prior material for generative storytelling. Meanwhile, Pérez y Pérez's MEXICA (1999) modeled the creative writing process using cycles of engagement and reflection. As systems increasingly incorporated models of internal evaluation, another approach that emerged was that of combining symbolic generation with domain-specific evaluation metrics, modeling generative and selective steps to creativity In the field of generational humor, the JAPE system (1994) generated pun-based riddles using Prolog and WordNet, applying symbolic pattern-matching rules and a large lexical database (WordNet) to compose riddles involving wordplay. WordNet is a system developed by George Miller and his team at Princeton, its platform and inspired word-mapping structures have been used as the backbone of several syntactic and semantic AI programs. A notable system for music generation was David Cope's EMI (Experiments in Musical Intelligence) or Emmy, which was trained in the styles of artists like Bach, Beethoven, or Chopin and generated novel pieces in their style through pattern abstraction and recomposition. In the 2000s and beyond, machine learning began influencing creative system design. Researchers such as Mihalcea and Strapparava trained classifiers to distinguish humorous from non-humorous text, using stylistic and semantic features. Meanwhile custom computational approaches led to chess systems like Deep Blue generating quasi-creative gameplay strategies through search algorithms and parallel processing constrained by specific rules and patterns for evaluation. The institutional development of computational creativity grew along its technical advances. Dedicated workshops such as the IJWCC emerged in the 1990s, growing out of interdisciplinary conferences focused on AI and creativity. By the early 2000s, the field coalesced around annual conferences like the International Conference on Computational Creativity (ICCC). Recently, with the advent of Deep Learning, Transformers, and further refinement in Machine Learning structures, computational creativity's implementation space has new tools for development. == Machine learning for computational creativity == While traditional computational approaches to creativity rely on the explicit formulation of prescriptions by developers and a certain degree of randomness in computer programs, machine learning methods allow computer programs to learn on heuristics from input data enabling creative capacities within the computer programs. Especially, deep artificial neural networks allow to learn patterns from input data that allow for the non-linear generation of creative artefacts. Before 1989, artificial neural networks have been used to model certain aspects of creativity. Peter Todd (1989) first trained a neural network to reproduce musical melodies from a training set of musical pieces. Then he used a change algorithm to modify the network's input parameters. The network was able to randomly generate new music in a highly uncontrolled manner. In 1992, Todd extended this work, using the so-called distal teacher approach that had been d
Read more →
Supersampling

Supersampling or supersampling anti-aliasing (SSAA) is a spatial anti-aliasing method, i.e. a method used to remove aliasing (jagged and pixelated edges, colloquially known as "jaggies") from images rendered in computer games or other computer programs that generate imagery. Aliasing occurs because unlike real-world objects, which have continuous smooth curves and lines, a computer screen shows the viewer a large number of small squares. These pixels all have the same size, and each one has a single color. A line can only be shown as a collection of pixels, and therefore appears jagged unless it is perfectly horizontal or vertical. The aim of supersampling is to reduce this effect. Color samples are taken at several instances inside the pixel (not just at the center as normal)—hence the term "supersampling"—and an average color value is calculated. This can for example be achieved by rendering the image at a much higher resolution than the one being displayed, then shrinking it to the desired size, using the extra pixels for calculation, with the result being a downsampled image with smoother transitions from one line of pixels to another along the edges of objects, but each pixel could also be supersampled using other strategies (see the Supersampling patterns section). The number of samples determines the quality of the output. == Motivation == Aliasing is manifested in the case of 2D images as moiré pattern and pixelated edges, colloquially known as "jaggies". Common signal processing and image processing knowledge suggests that to achieve perfect elimination of aliasing, proper spatial sampling at the Nyquist rate (or higher) after applying a 2D Anti-aliasing filter is required. As this approach would require a forward and inverse fourier transformation, computationally less demanding approximations like supersampling were developed to avoid domain switches by staying in the spatial domain ("image domain"). == Method == === Computational cost and adaptive supersampling === Supersampling is computationally expensive because it requires much greater video card memory and memory bandwidth, since the amount of buffer used is several times larger. A way around this problem is to use a technique known as adaptive supersampling, where only pixels at the edges of objects are supersampled. Initially only a few samples are taken within each pixel. If these values are very similar, only these samples are used to determine the color. If not, more are used. The result of this method is that a higher number of samples are calculated only where necessary, thus improving performance. === Supersampling patterns === When taking samples within a pixel, the sample positions have to be determined in some way. Although the number of ways in which this can be done is infinite, there are a few ways which are commonly used. ==== Grid ==== The simplest algorithm. The pixel is split into several sub-pixels, and a sample is taken from the center of each. It is fast and easy to implement. Although, due to the regular nature of sampling, aliasing can still occur if a low number of sub-pixels is used. ==== Random ==== Also known as stochastic sampling, it avoids the regularity of grid supersampling. However, due to the irregularity of the pattern, samples end up being unnecessary in some areas of the pixel and lacking in others. ==== Poisson disk ==== The Poisson disk sampling algorithm places the samples randomly, but then checks that any two are not too close. The end result is an even but random distribution of samples. The naive "dart throwing" algorithm is extremely slow for large data sets, which once limited its applications for real-time rendering. However, many fast algorithms now exist to generate Poisson disk noise, even those with variable density. The Delone set provides a mathematical description of such sampling. ==== Jittered ==== A modification of the grid algorithm to approximate the Poisson disk. A pixel is split into several sub-pixels, but a sample is not taken from the center of each, but from a random point within the sub-pixel. Congregation can still occur, but to a lesser degree. ==== Rotated grid ==== A 2×2 grid layout is used but the sample pattern is rotated to avoid samples aligning on the horizontal or vertical axis, greatly improving antialiasing quality for the most commonly encountered cases. For an optimal pattern, the rotation angle is arctan (⁠1/2⁠) (about 26.6°) and the square is stretched by a factor of ⁠√5/2⁠, making it also a 4-queens solution.
Read more →
Dr.Fill

Dr.Fill is a computer program that solves American-style crossword puzzles. It was developed by Matt Ginsberg and described by Ginsberg in an article in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. Ginsberg claims in that article that Dr.Fill is among the top fifty crossword solvers in the world. == History == Dr.Fill participated in the 2012 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament, finishing 141st of approximately 650 entrants with a total score of just over 10,000 points. The appearance led to a variety of descriptions of Dr.Fill in the popular press, including The Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle and Gizmodo. A description of Dr.Fill appeared on the front page of the March 17, 2012 New York Times. Dr.Fill's score in 2013 improved to 10,550, which would have earned it 92nd place. Videos of the program solving the problems from the tournament are available on YouTube. The score in 2014 improved further to 10,790, which would have tied for 67th place. A video of the program solving the first six puzzles from that tournament, together with a talk given by Ginsberg describing its performance, can be found on YouTube. Dr.Fill has largely continued to improve since the 2014 event. In 2015, it scored 10,920 points and finished in 55th place. In 2016, it scored 11,205 points and finished in 41st place. In 2017, it scored 11,795 and finished in 11th place. In 2018, it scored 10,740 points, dropping to 78th place. Dr.Fill returned to "form" in 2019, once again scoring 11,795 and finishing in 14th place. The 2020 ACPT was cancelled due to COVID-19, and Dr.Fill participated as a non-competitor in the Boswords tournament instead. The program outperformed the humans, scoring 11,218 points (fast solves with a total of one mistake) while the best scoring human scored 10,994 points (slower solves but no mistakes). The 2021 ACPT was virtual, again due to COVID-19. The Dr.Fill effort was joined by the Berkeley NLP Group, creating a hybrid system named Berkeley Crossword Solver, and Dr.Fill won the main event, scoring 12,825 points with Erik Agard, the highest scoring human, scoring 12,810 points. The tournament was won by Tyler Hinman (12,760 points), who completed the championship puzzle perfectly in three minutes. Dr.Fill also completed that puzzle perfectly, but in 49 seconds. After winning the tournament, Ginsberg announced on August 8, 2021, that both he and Dr.Fill would be retiring from crosswords. == Algorithm == As described by Ginsberg, Dr.Fill works by converting a crossword to a weighted constraint satisfaction problem and then attempting to maximize the probability that the fill is correct. Probabilities for individual words or phrases in the puzzle are computed using relatively simple statistical techniques based on features such as previous appearances of the clue, number of Google hits for the fill, and so on. In doing this, Dr.Fill is attempting to solve a problem similar to that tackled by the Jeopardy!-playing program Watson; Dr.Fill runs on a laptop instead of a supercomputer and Ginsberg remarks that Watson is far more effective than Dr.Fill at solving this portion of the problem. Instead of computational horsepower, Dr.Fill relies on the constraints provided by crossing words to refine its answers. A variety of techniques from artificial intelligence are applied to attempt to find the most likely fill. These include a small amount of lookahead, limited discrepancy search, and postprocessing. Ginsberg remarks that postprocessing was chosen over branch and bound because the two techniques are mutually incompatible and postprocessing was found to be more effective in this domain.
Read more →
Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence

The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI, pronounced "gee-pay") is an international initiative established to guide the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a manner that respects human rights and the shared democratic values of its members. The partnership was first proposed by Canada and France at the 2018 44th G7 summit, and officially launched in June 2020. GPAI is hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). GPAI seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by supporting research and applied activities in areas that are directly relevant to policymakers in the realm of AI. It brings together experts from industry, civil society, governments, and academia to collaborate on the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence. == History == The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence was announced on the margins of the 2018 G7 Summit by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron. It officially launched on June 15, 2020 with fifteen founding members: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hosts a dedicated secretariat to support GPAI's governing bodies and activities. UNESCO joined the partnership in December 2020 as an observer. On November 11, 2021, Czechia, Israel and few more EU countries also joined the GPAI, bringing the total membership to 25 countries. Since the November 2022 summit, the list of members stands at 29. Austria, Chile, Finland, Malaysia, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland were invited. The seven, however, are pending membership approval. == Membership == The following 29 members of the GPAI are: Argentina Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Czech Republic Denmark France Germany India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Republic of Korea Senegal Serbia Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States European Union Invited members: Austria (pending membership approval) Chile (pending membership approval) Finland (pending membership approval) Malaysia (pending membership approval) Norway (pending membership approval) Slovakia (pending membership approval) Switzerland (pending membership approval) == Organization == GPAI's experts collaborate across several Working Groups themes: Responsible AI (including an ad-hoc subgroup on AI and Pandemic Response), Data Governance, Future of Work, and Innovation & Commercialization. GPAI's Working Groups are supported by two Centres of Expertise: one in Montreal that supports the first two Working Groups, and one in Paris that supports the latter two. It also has a Steering Committee, the elected chair of which has also been to date elected chair of the Multi Stakeholder Group (MEG). These chairs have been: Jordan Zed and Baroness Joanna Shields (Shields, MEG chair; 2020-2021), Joanna Shields and Renaud Vedel (Shields, MEG chair; 2021-2022), Yoichi Iida and Inma Martinez (Martinez, MEG chair; 2023-2024) GPAI has a rotating presidency and host (much like the G7). The presidencies to date have been: Canada (2020) France (2021) Japan (2022) India (2023)
Read more →
Ramification problem

In philosophy and artificial intelligence (especially, knowledge based systems), the ramification problem is concerned with the indirect consequences of an action. It might also be posed as how to represent what happens implicitly due to an action or how to control the secondary and tertiary effects of an action. It is strongly connected to, and is opposite the qualification side of, the frame problem. Limit theory helps in operational usage. For instance, in KBE derivation of a populated design (geometrical objects, etc., similar concerns apply in shape theory), equivalence assumptions allow convergence where potentially large, and perhaps even computationally indeterminate, solution sets are handled deftly. Yet, in a chain of computation, downstream events may very well find some types of results from earlier resolutions of ramification as problematic for their own algorithms.
Read more →
Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm

The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm (TF algorithm), is an efficient algorithm for generating the background image of a given video sequence. By assuming that the background image is shown in the majority of the video, the algorithm is able to generate a good background image of a video in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time using only a small number of binary operations and Boolean bit operations, which require a small amount of memory and has built-in operators found in many programming languages such as C, C++, and Java. == History == People tracking from videos usually involves some form of background subtraction to segment foreground from background. Once foreground images are extracted, then desired algorithms (such as those for motion tracking, object tracking, and facial recognition) may be executed using these images. However, background subtraction requires that the background image is already available and unfortunately, this is not always the case. Traditionally, the background image is searched for manually or automatically from the video images when there are no objects. More recently, automatic background generation through object detection, medial filtering, medoid filtering, approximated median filtering, linear predictive filter, non-parametric model, Kalman filter, and adaptive smoothening have been suggested; however, most of these methods have high computational complexity and are resource-intensive. The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is also an automatic background generation algorithm. Its advantage, however, is its computational speed of only O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of an image and its accuracy gained within a manageable number of frames. Only at least three frames from a video is needed to produce the background image assuming that for every pixel position, the background occurs in the majority of the videos. Furthermore, it can be performed for both grayscale and colored videos. == Assumptions == The camera is stationary. The light of the environment changes only slowly relative to the motions of the people in the scene. The number of people does not occupy the scene for most of the time at the same place. Generally, however, the algorithm will certainly work whenever the following single important assumption holds: For each pixel position, the majority of the pixel values in the entire video contain the pixel value of the actual background image (at that position).As long as each part of the background is shown in the majority of the video, the entire background image needs not to appear in any of its frames. The algorithm is expected to work accurately. == Background image generation == === Equations === For three frames of image sequence x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , and x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} , the background image B {\displaystyle B} is obtained using B = x 3 ( x 1 ⊕ x 2 ) + x 1 x 2 {\displaystyle B=x_{3}(x_{1}\oplus x_{2})+x_{1}x_{2}} where ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } denotes the exclusive disjunctive bit operator. The Boolean mode function S {\displaystyle S} of the table occurs when the number of 1 entries is larger than half of the number of images such that S = { 1 , if ∑ i = 1 n x i ≥ ⌈ n 2 + 1 ⌉ , and n ≥ 3 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle S={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\geq \left\lceil {\frac {n}{2}}+1\right\rceil ,{\text{ and }}n\geq 3\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} For three images, the background image B {\displaystyle B} can be taken as the value x ¯ 1 x 2 x 3 + x 1 x ¯ 2 x 3 + x 1 x 2 x ¯ 3 + x 1 x 2 x 3 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}{\bar {x}}_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}{\bar {x}}_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}} === Background generation algorithm === At the first level, three frames are selected at random from the image sequence to produce a background image by combining them using the first equation. This yields a better background image at the second level. The procedure is repeated until desired level L {\displaystyle L} . == Theoretical accuracy == At level ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , the probability p ℓ {\displaystyle p_{\ell }} that the modal bit predicted is the actual modal bit is represented by the equation p ℓ = ( p ℓ − 1 ) 3 + 3 ( p ℓ − 1 ) 2 ( 1 − p ℓ − 1 ) {\displaystyle p_{\ell }=(p_{\ell -1})^{3}+3(p_{\ell -1})^{2}(1-p_{\ell -1})} . The table below gives the computed probability values across several levels using some specific initial probabilities. It can be observed that even if the modal bit at the considered position is at a low 60% of the frames, the probability of accurate modal bit determination is already more than 99% at 6 levels. == Space complexity == The space requirement of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is given by the function O ( R F + R 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(RF+R3^{L})} , depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of the image, the number F {\displaystyle F} of frames in the video, and the desired number L {\displaystyle L} of levels. However, the fact that L {\displaystyle L} will probably not exceed 6 reduces the space complexity to O ( R F ) {\displaystyle O(RF)} . == Time complexity == The entire algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, only depending on the resolution of the image. Computing the modal bit for each bit can be done in O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} -time while the computation of the resulting image from the three given images can be done in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time. The number of the images to be processed in L {\displaystyle L} levels is O ( 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(3^{L})} . However, since L ≤ 6 {\displaystyle L\leq 6} , then this is actually O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} , thus the algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} . == Variants == A variant of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm that incorporates the Monte-Carlo method named CRF has been developed. Two different configurations of CRF were implemented: CRF9,2 and CRF81,1. Experiments on some colored video sequences showed that the CRF configurations outperform the TF algorithm in terms of accuracy. However, the TF algorithm remains more efficient in terms of processing time. == Applications == Object detection Face detection Face recognition Pedestrian detection Video surveillance Motion capture Human-computer interaction Content-based video coding Traffic monitoring Real-time gesture recognition
Read more →
Planner (programming language)

Planner (often seen in publications as "PLANNER" although it is not an acronym) is a programming language designed by Carl Hewitt at MIT, and first published in 1969. First, subsets such as Micro-Planner and Pico-Planner were implemented, and then essentially the whole language was implemented as Popler by Julian Davies at the University of Edinburgh in the POP-2 programming language. Derivations such as QA4, Conniver, QLISP and Ether (see scientific community metaphor) were important tools in artificial intelligence research in the 1970s, which influenced commercial developments such as Knowledge Engineering Environment (KEE) and Automated Reasoning Tool (ART). == Procedural approach versus logical approach == The two major paradigms for constructing semantic software systems were procedural and logical. The procedural paradigm was epitomized by Lisp which featured recursive procedures that operated on list structures. The logical paradigm was epitomized by uniform proof procedure resolution-based derivation (proof) finders. According to the logical paradigm it was “cheating” to incorporate procedural knowledge. == Procedural embedding of knowledge == Planner was invented for the purposes of the procedural embedding of knowledge and was a rejection of the resolution uniform proof procedure paradigm, which Converted everything to clausal form. Converting all information to clausal form is problematic because it hides the underlying structure of the information. Then used resolution to attempt to obtain a proof by contradiction by adding the clausal form of the negation of the theorem to be proved. Using only resolution as the rule of inference is problematical because it hides the underlying structure of proofs. Also, using proof by contradiction is problematical because the axiomatizations of all practical domains of knowledge are inconsistent in practice. Planner was a kind of hybrid between the procedural and logical paradigms because it combined programmability with logical reasoning. Planner featured a procedural interpretation of logical sentences where an implication of the form (P implies Q) can be procedurally interpreted in the following ways using pattern-directed invocation: Forward chaining (antecedently): If assert P, assert Q If assert not Q, assert not P Backward chaining (consequently) If goal Q, goal P If goal not P, goal not Q In this respect, the development of Planner was influenced by natural deductive logical systems (especially the one by Frederic Fitch [1952]). == Micro-planner implementation == A subset called Micro-Planner was implemented by Gerry Sussman, Eugene Charniak and Terry Winograd and was used in Winograd's natural-language understanding program SHRDLU, Eugene Charniak's story understanding work, Thorne McCarty's work on legal reasoning, and some other projects. This generated a great deal of excitement in the field of AI. It also generated controversy because it proposed an alternative to the logic approach that had been one of the mainstay paradigms for AI. At SRI International, Jeff Rulifson, Jan Derksen, and Richard Waldinger developed QA4 which built on the constructs in Planner and introduced a context mechanism to provide modularity for expressions in the database. Earl Sacerdoti and Rene Reboh developed QLISP, an extension of QA4 embedded in INTERLISP, providing Planner-like reasoning embedded in a procedural language and developed in its rich programming environment. QLISP was used by Richard Waldinger and Karl Levitt for program verification, by Earl Sacerdoti for planning and execution monitoring, by Jean-Claude Latombe for computer-aided design, by Nachum Dershowitz for program synthesis, by Richard Fikes for deductive retrieval, and by Steven Coles for an early expert system that guided use of an econometric model. Computers were expensive. They had only a single slow processor and their memories were very small by comparison with today. So Planner adopted some efficiency expedients including the following: Backtracking was adopted to economize on the use of time and storage by working on and storing only one possibility at a time in exploring alternatives. A unique name assumption was adopted to save space and time by assuming that different names referred to different objects. For example, names like Peking (previous PRC capital name) and Beijing (current PRC capital transliteration) were assumed to refer to different objects. A closed-world assumption could be implemented by conditionally testing whether an attempt to prove a goal exhaustively failed. Later this capability was given the misleading name "negation as failure" because for a goal G it was possible to say: "if attempting to achieve G exhaustively fails then assert (Not G)." == The genesis of Prolog == Gerry Sussman, Eugene Charniak, Seymour Papert and Terry Winograd visited the University of Edinburgh in 1971, spreading the news about Micro-Planner and SHRDLU and casting doubt on the resolution uniform proof procedure approach that had been the mainstay of the Edinburgh Logicists. At the University of Edinburgh, Bruce Anderson implemented a subset of Micro-Planner called PICO-PLANNER, and Julian Davies (1973) implemented essentially all of Planner. According to Donald MacKenzie, Pat Hayes recalled the impact of a visit from Papert to Edinburgh, which had become the "heart of artificial intelligence's Logicland," according to Papert's MIT colleague, Carl Hewitt. Papert eloquently voiced his critique of the resolution approach dominant at Edinburgh "…and at least one person upped sticks and left because of Papert." The above developments generated tension among the Logicists at Edinburgh. These tensions were exacerbated when the UK Science Research Council commissioned Sir James Lighthill to write a report on the AI research situation in the UK. The resulting report [Lighthill 1973; McCarthy 1973] was highly critical although SHRDLU was favorably mentioned. Pat Hayes visited Stanford where he learned about Planner. When he returned to Edinburgh, he tried to influence his friend Bob Kowalski to take Planner into account in their joint work on automated theorem proving. "Resolution theorem-proving was demoted from a hot topic to a relic of the misguided past. Bob Kowalski doggedly stuck to his faith in the potential of resolution theorem proving. He carefully studied Planner.”. Kowalski [1988] states "I can recall trying to convince Hewitt that Planner was similar to SL-resolution." But Planner was invented for the purposes of the procedural embedding of knowledge and was a rejection of the resolution uniform proof procedure paradigm. Colmerauer and Roussel recalled their reaction to learning about Planner in the following way: "While attending an IJCAI convention in September ‘71 with Jean Trudel, we met Robert Kowalski again and heard a lecture by Terry Winograd on natural language processing. The fact that he did not use a unified formalism left us puzzled. It was at this time that we learned of the existence of Carl Hewitt’s programming language, Planner. The lack of formalization of this language, our ignorance of Lisp and, above all, the fact that we were absolutely devoted to logic meant that this work had little influence on our later research." In the fall of 1972, Philippe Roussel implemented a language called Prolog (an abbreviation for PROgrammation en LOGique – French for "programming in logic"). Prolog programs are generically of the following form (which is a special case of the backward-chaining in Planner): When goal Q, goal P1 and ... and goal Pn Prolog duplicated the following aspects of Micro-Planner: Pattern directed invocation of procedures from goals (i.e. backward chaining) An indexed data base of pattern-directed procedures and ground sentences. Giving up on the completeness paradigm that had characterized previous work on theorem proving and replacing it with the programming language procedural embedding of knowledge paradigm. Prolog also duplicated the following capabilities of Micro-Planner which were pragmatically useful for the computers of the era because they saved space and time: Backtracking control structure Unique Name Assumption by which different names are assumed to refer to distinct entities, e.g., Peking and Beijing are assumed to be different. Reification of Failure. The way that Planner established that something was provable was to successfully attempt it as a goal and the way that it establish that something was unprovable was to attempt it as a goal and explicitly fail. Of course the other possibility is that the attempt to prove the goal runs forever and never returns any value. Planner also had a (not expression) construct which succeeded if expression failed, which gave rise to the “Negation as Failure” terminology in Planner. Use of the Unique Name Assumption and Negation as Failure became more questionable when attention turned to Open Systems. The following capabiliti
Read more →
Mittens (chess)

Mittens is a chess engine developed by Chess.com. It was released on January 1, 2023, alongside four other engines, all of them given cat-related names. The engine became a viral sensation in the chess community due to exposure through content made by chess streamers and a social media marketing campaign, later contributing to record levels of traffic to the Chess.com website and causing issues with database scalability. Mittens was given a rating of one point by Chess.com, although it was evidently stronger than that. Various chess masters played matches against the engine, with players such as Hikaru Nakamura and Levy Rozman drawing and losing their games respectively. A month after its release, Mittens was removed from the website on February 1, as expected through Chess.com's monthly bot cycles. In December 2023, Mittens was brought back in a group of Chess.com's most popular bots of 2023. In January 2024, Mittens was removed again. == Release == Mittens was released on January 1, 2023, as part of a New Year event on Chess.com. It was one of five engines released, all with names related to cats. The other engines released were named Scaredy Cat, rated 800; Angry Cat, rated 1000; Mr. Grumpers, rated 1200 and Catspurrov (a pun on Garry Kasparov), rated 1400. As part of the announcement, a picture of each engine was accompanied by a short description of its character. The description given for Mittens suggested that the engine was hiding something, reading: Mittens likes chess… But how good is she? Of the five engines released, Mittens was by far the most popular. In December 2023, Chess.com re-released Mittens as part of a "best of 2023" group of chess bots made to showcase their most popular bots of the year. == Design == Mittens was conceptualized by Chess.com employee Will Whalen. Appearing as a kitten, Mittens trash talked its opponents with a selection of voice lines: these lines included quotes from J. Robert Oppenheimer, Vincent van Gogh and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as the 1967 film Le Samouraï. The engine's "personality" was devised by a writing team headed by Sean Becker, and Marija Casic provided the engine's graphics. Chess.com did not disclose any information about the software running the engine. It may be based on Chess.com's Komodo Dragon 3 engine. Mittens' strategy was to slowly grind down an opponent, a tactic likened to the playing style of Anatoly Karpov. Becker stated that the design team believed it would be "way more demoralizing and funny" for the engine to play this way. According to Hikaru Nakamura, Mittens sometimes missed the best move (or winning positions). == Rating == On Chess.com, Mittens had a rating of one point. However, the engine's playing style and tactics showed that it was stronger than that; Mittens was able to beat or draw against many top human players. In an interview with CNN Business, Whalen stated that the idea behind giving Mittens a rating of one was to surprise its opponents, giving it the upper hand psychologically. Estimates of Mittens' true rating range from an Elo of 3200 to 3500, because of its ability to beat other engines of around that level. An upper bound of the engine's rating was found after Levy Rozman made Mittens play against Stockfish 15, a 3700 rated engine. Mittens lost the two games that the engines played. The range of Mittens' possible ratings was summarized by Dot Esports, who stated: It seems like she’s around the 3200–3500 rating range (in Chess.com terms, where the best human players, like Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura, sport a 3000–3100 rating in the faster formats), as evidenced by her victories over the site’s otherwise strongest, 3200-rated bots, and her defeat to Stockfish 15, which is currently rated around 3700. == Games == Against human players, Mittens won over 99 percent of the millions of games it played. Chess players such as Hikaru Nakamura, Benjamin Bok, Levy Rozman and Eric Rosen struggled against Mittens; while Rozman and Rosen both lost against the engine, Nakamura and Bok were both able to make a draw. In particular, Nakamura's game against the engine lasted 166 moves; he was playing as White. Bok, Benjamin Finegold and Rozman later went on to win against Mittens, the latter with engine assistance from Stockfish. Magnus Carlsen publicly refused to play the engine, calling it a "transparent marketing trick" and "a soulless computer". Against other chess engines, Mittens participated in the Chess.com Computer Chess Championship as a side act. In the competition, Mittens played 150 games against an engine named after the film M3GAN and won overall with a score of 81.5 to 68.5. This equated to 54 percent of the games played. During the event, an estimate of Mittens' rating was made at 3515 points. == Impact == Mittens went viral in the chess community due to its concept and design: according to an announcement by Chess.com, a combined total of 120 million games were played against the cat engines over the course of January, with around 40 million played against Mittens. The popularity of the engine was helped by the social media exposure created by Chess.com. This included creating an official Twitter account to promote the engine. Chess streamers like Rozman and Nakamura helped cultivate this by creating content around the engine. A video by Nakamura entitled "Mittens the chess bot will make you quit chess" gained over 3.5 million views on YouTube. On January 11, Chess.com reported issues with database scalability due to record levels of traffic: 40 percent more games had been played on Chess.com in January 2023 than any other month since the website's release. According to The Wall Street Journal, the popularity spike was more than the similar surge following the release of Netflix's The Queen's Gambit. The popularity of Mittens was cited by Chess.com as a reason for this instability. The problems continued throughout January; Chess.com stated that they would have to upgrade their servers and invest more in cloud computing to solve the problems caused by the website's popularity surge. On February 1, 2023, Mittens and the other cat engines were removed from the computer section of Chess.com. They were replaced with five new engines themed around artificial intelligence. A tweet was posted on the Mittens's Twitter account after the engine's removal, reading "This is just the beginning. Goodbye for now."
Read more →