AI Content Improver Free Online

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

• 

  Hierarchical control system

  A hierarchical control system (HCS) is a form of control system in which a set of devices and governing software is arranged in a hierarchical tree. When the links in the tree are implemented by a computer network, then that hierarchical control system is also a form of networked control system. == Overview == A human-built system with complex behavior is often organized as a hierarchy. For example, a command hierarchy has among its notable features the organizational chart of superiors, subordinates, and lines of organizational communication. Hierarchical control systems are organized similarly to divide the decision making responsibility. Each element of the hierarchy is a linked node in the tree. Commands, tasks and goals to be achieved flow down the tree from superior nodes to subordinate nodes, whereas sensations and command results flow up the tree from subordinate to superior nodes. Nodes may also exchange messages with their siblings. The two distinguishing features of a hierarchical control system are related to its layers. Each higher layer of the tree operates with a longer interval of planning and execution time than its immediately lower layer. The lower layers have local tasks, goals, and sensations, and their activities are planned and coordinated by higher layers which do not generally override their decisions. The layers form a hybrid intelligent system in which the lowest, reactive layers are sub-symbolic. The higher layers, having relaxed time constraints, are capable of reasoning from an abstract world model and performing planning. A hierarchical task network is a good fit for planning in a hierarchical control system. Besides artificial systems, an animal's control systems are proposed to be organized as a hierarchy. In perceptual control theory, which postulates that an organism's behavior is a means of controlling its perceptions, the organism's control systems are suggested to be organized in a hierarchical pattern as their perceptions are constructed so. == Control system structure == The accompanying diagram is a general hierarchical model which shows functional manufacturing levels using computerised control of an industrial control system. Referring to the diagram; Level 0 contains the field devices such as flow and temperature sensors, and final control elements, such as control valves Level 1 contains the industrialised Input/Output (I/O) modules, and their associated distributed electronic processors. Level 2 contains the supervisory computers, which collate information from processor nodes on the system, and provide the operator control screens. Level 3 is the production control level, which does not directly control the process, but is concerned with monitoring production and monitoring targets Level 4 is the production scheduling level. == Applications == === Manufacturing, robotics and vehicles === Among the robotic paradigms is the hierarchical paradigm in which a robot operates in a top-down fashion, heavy on planning, especially motion planning. Computer-aided production engineering has been a research focus at NIST since the 1980s. Its Automated Manufacturing Research Facility was used to develop a five layer production control model. In the early 1990s DARPA sponsored research to develop distributed (i.e. networked) intelligent control systems for applications such as military command and control systems. NIST built on earlier research to develop its Real-Time Control System (RCS) and Real-time Control System Software which is a generic hierarchical control system that has been used to operate a manufacturing cell, a robot crane, and an automated vehicle. In November 2007, DARPA held the Urban Challenge. The winning entry, Tartan Racing employed a hierarchical control system, with layered mission planning, motion planning, behavior generation, perception, world modelling, and mechatronics. === Artificial intelligence === Subsumption architecture is a methodology for developing artificial intelligence that is heavily associated with behavior based robotics. This architecture is a way of decomposing complicated intelligent behavior into many "simple" behavior modules, which are in turn organized into layers. Each layer implements a particular goal of the software agent (i.e. system as a whole), and higher layers are increasingly more abstract. Each layer's goal subsumes that of the underlying layers, e.g. the decision to move forward by the eat-food layer takes into account the decision of the lowest obstacle-avoidance layer. Behavior need not be planned by a superior layer, rather behaviors may be triggered by sensory inputs and so are only active under circumstances where they might be appropriate. Reinforcement learning has been used to acquire behavior in a hierarchical control system in which each node can learn to improve its behavior with experience. James Albus, while at NIST, developed a theory for intelligent system design named the Reference Model Architecture (RMA), which is a hierarchical control system inspired by RCS. Albus defines each node to contain these components. Behavior generation is responsible for executing tasks received from the superior, parent node. It also plans for, and issues tasks to, the subordinate nodes. Sensory perception is responsible for receiving sensations from the subordinate nodes, then grouping, filtering, and otherwise processing them into higher level abstractions that update the local state and which form sensations that are sent to the superior node. Value judgment is responsible for evaluating the updated situation and evaluating alternative plans. World Model is the local state that provides a model for the controlled system, controlled process, or environment at the abstraction level of the subordinate nodes. At its lowest levels, the RMA can be implemented as a subsumption architecture, in which the world model is mapped directly to the controlled process or real world, avoiding the need for a mathematical abstraction, and in which time-constrained reactive planning can be implemented as a finite-state machine. Higher levels of the RMA however, may have sophisticated mathematical world models and behavior implemented by automated planning and scheduling. Planning is required when certain behaviors cannot be triggered by current sensations, but rather by predicted or anticipated sensations, especially those that come about as result of the node's actions.

  Read more →
• 

  Issue tree

  An issue tree, also called logic tree, is a graphical breakdown of a question that dissects it into its different components vertically and that progresses into details as it reads to the right. Issue trees are useful in problem solving to identify the root causes of a problem as well as to identify its potential solutions. They also provide a reference point to see how each piece fits into the whole picture of a problem. == Types == According to professor of strategy Arnaud Chevallier, elaborating an approach used at McKinsey & Company, there are two types of issue trees: diagnostic ones and solution ones. Diagnostic trees break down a "why" key question, identifying all the possible root causes for the problem. Solution trees break down a "how" key question, identifying all the possible alternatives to fix the problem. == Rules == Four basic rules can help ensure that issue trees are optimal, according to Chevallier: Consistently answer a "why" or a "how" question Progress from the key question to the analysis as it moves to the right Have branches that are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE) Use an insightful breakdown The requirement for issue trees to be collectively exhaustive implies that divergent thinking is a critical skill. == Applications == === In management interviews === Issue trees are used to answer questions in case interviews for management consulting positions. A quantitative type of question, the market sizing question, requires the interviewee to estimate the size of a data group such as a specific segment of a population, an amount of objects, a company's revenues, or similar. The candidates are expected to use a structured and logical method of arriving at their answer, and using an issue tree provides a diagram to aid the candidate's logical reasoning. Issue trees are used for other types of case interview questions as well.

  Read more →
• 

  Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles

  The Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles (LAGR) program, which ran from 2004 until 2008, had the goal of accelerating progress in autonomous, perception-based, off-road navigation in robotic unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). LAGR was funded by DARPA, a research agency of the United States Department of Defense. == History and background == While mobile robots had been in existence since the 1960s, (e.g. Shakey), progress in creating robots that could navigate on their own, outdoors, off-road, on irregular, obstacle-rich terrain had been slow. In fact, no clear metrics were in place to measure progress. A baseline understanding of off-road capabilities began to emerge with the DARPA PerceptOR program in which independent research teams fielded robotic vehicles in unrehearsed Government tests that measured average speed and number of required operator interventions over a fixed course over widely spaced waypoints. These tests exposed the extreme challenges of off-road navigation. While the PerceptOR vehicles were equipped with sensors and algorithms that were state-of-the-art for the beginning of the 21st century, the limited range of their perception technology caused them to become trapped in natural cul-de-sacs. Furthermore, their reliance on pre-scripted behaviors did not allow them to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The overall result was that except for essentially open terrain with minimal obstacles, or along dirt roads, the PerceptOR vehicles were unable navigate without numerous, repeated operator intervention. The LAGR program was designed to build on the methodology started in PerceptOR while seeking to overcome the technical challenges exposed by the PerceptOR tests. == LAGR goals == The principal goal of LAGR was to accelerate progress in off navigation of UGVs. Additional, synergistic goals included (1) establishing benchmarking methodology for measuring progress for autonomous robots operating in unstructured environments, (2) advancing machine vision and thus enabling long-range perception, and (3) increasing the number of institutions and individuals who were able to contribute to forefront UGV research. == Structure and rationale of the LAGR program == The LAGR program was designed to focus on developing new science for robot perception and control rather than on new hardware. Thus, it was decided to create a fleet of identical, relatively simple robots that would be supplied to the LAGR researchers, who were members of competitive teams, freeing them to concentrate on algorithm development. The teams were each given two robots of the standard design. They developed new software on these robots, and then sent the code to a government test team that then tested that code on Government robots at various test courses. These courses were located throughout the US and were not previously known to the teams. In this way, the code from all teams could be tested in essentially identical circumstances. After an initial startup period, the code development/test cycle was repeated about once every month. The standard robot was designed and built by the Carnegie Mellon University National Robotics Engineering Center (CMU NREC). The vehicles’ computers were preloaded with a modular “Baseline” perception and navigation system that was essentially the same system that CMU NREC had created for the PerceptOR program and was considered to represent the state-of-the-art at the inception of LAGR. The modular nature of the Baseline system allowed the researchers to replace parts of the Baseline code with their own modules and still have a complete working system without having to create an entire navigation system from scratch. Thus, for example, they were able to compare the performance of their own obstacle detection module with that of the Baseline code, while holding everything else fixed. The Baseline code also served as a fixed reference – in any environment and at any time in the program, teams’ code could be compared to the Baseline code. This rapid cycle gave the Government team and the performer teams quick feedback and allowed the Government team to design test courses that challenged the performers in specific perception tasks and whose difficulty was likely to challenge, but not overwhelm, the performers’ current capabilities. Teams were not required to submit new code for every test, but usually did. Despite this leeway, some teams found the rapid test cycle distracting to their long term progress and would have preferred a longer interval between tests. === Phase II === To advance to Phase II, each team had to modify the Baseline code so that on the final 3 tests of Phase I of the government tests, robots running the team's code averaged at least 10% faster than a vehicle running the original Baseline code. This rather modest “Go/ No Go” metric was chosen to allow teams to choose risky, but promising approaches that might not be fully developed in the first 18 months of the program. All 8 teams achieved this metric, with some scoring more twice the speed of the Baseline on the later tests which was the objective for Phase II. Note that the Phase I Go / No Go metric was such that teams were not in completion with each other for a limited number of slots on Phase II: any number of teams, from eight to zero could make the grade. This strategy by DARPA was to designed to encourage cooperation and even code sharing among the teams. == The LAGR teams == Eight teams were selected as performers in Phase I, the first 18 months of LAGR. The teams were from Applied Perception (Principal Investigator [PI] Mark Ollis), Georgia Tech (PI Tucker Balch), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PI Larry Matthies), Net-Scale Technologies (PI Urs Muller), NIST (PI James Albus), Stanford University (PI Sebastian Thrun), SRI International (PI Robert Bolles), and University of Pennsylvania (PI Daniel Lee). The Stanford team resigned at the end of Phase I to focus its efforts on the DARPA Grand Challenge; it was replaced by a team from the University of Colorado, Boulder (PI Greg Grudic). Also in Phase II, the NIST team suspended its participation in the competition and instead concentrated on assembling the best software elements from each team into a single system. Roger Bostelman became PI of that effort. == The LAGR vehicle == The LAGR vehicle, which was about the size of a supermarket shopping cart, was designed to be simple to control. (A companion DARPA program, Learning Locomotion, addressed complex motor control.) It was battery powered and had two independently driven wheelchair motors in the front, and two caster wheels in the rear. When the front wheels were rotated in the same direction the robot was driven either forward or reverse. When these wheels were driven in opposite directions, the robot turned. The ~ $30,000 cost of the LAGR vehicle meant that a fleet could be built and distributed to a number of teams expanding on the field of researchers who had traditionally participated in DARPA robotics programs. The vehicle's top speed of about 3 miles/ hour and relatively modest weight of ~100 kg meant that it posed a much reduced safety hazard compared to vehicles used in previous programs in unmanned ground vehicles and thus further reduced the budget required for each team to manage its robot. Nevertheless, the LAGR vehicles were sophisticated machines. Their sensor suite included 2 pairs of stereo cameras, an accelerometer, a bumper sensor, wheel encoders, and a GPS. The vehicle also had three computers that were user-programmable. == Scientific results == A cornerstone of the program was incorporation of learned behaviors in the robots. In addition, the program used passive optical systems to accomplish long-range scene analysis. The difficulty of testing UGV navigation in unstructured, off-road environments made accurate, objective measurement of progress a challenging task. While no absolute measure of performance had been defined in LAGR, the relative comparison of a team's code to that of the Baseline code on a given course demonstrated whether progress was being made in that environment. By the conclusion of the program, testing showed that many of the performers had attained leaps in performance. In particular, average autonomous speeds were increased by factor of 3 and useful visual perception was extended to ranges as far as 100 meters. While LAGR did succeed in extending the useful range of visual perception, this was primarily done by either pixel or patch-based color or texture analysis. Object recognition was not directly addressed. Even though the LAGR vehicle had a WAAS GPS, its position was never determined down to the width of the vehicle, so it was hard for the systems to re-use obstacle maps of areas the robots had previously traversed since the GPS continually drifted. The drift was especially severe if there was a forest canopy. A few teams developed visual odometry algorithms that essentially eliminated this drift.

  Read more →
• 

  OpenL Tablets

  OpenL Tablets is a business rule management system (BRMS) and a business rules engine (BRE) based on table representation of rules. Engine implements optimized sequential algorithm. OpenL includes such table types as decision table, decision tree, spreadsheet-like calculator. == History == The OpenL Tablets project was started as an in-house development project in 2003 and later in 2006 was uploaded to SourceForge. Initially it was an open-source business rule engine for Java. Starting from version 5 it became a BRMS. == Technology == OpenL Tablets engine is specially designed for business rules and uses table rules presentation. Table format enforces rules to be structured and format itself is close to tables found in various business documents. OpenL Tablets is based on OpenL framework for creating custom languages running on Java VM. The engine is designed to allow pluggable language implementations. Currently, it uses 2 languages: table structure for rules format and java-like for code snippets in rules. Java-like language is Java 5.0 implementation with Business User Extensions. OpenL Tablets rules are mixture of declarative programming for rules logic and imperative programming for workflow control. Table formats are flexible enough to match the semantics of the problem domain. Tests, traces, benchmarks are integral part of the engine. It also provides powerful type definition capabilities to handle rules domain model inside rules files. The project is written in Java, but can be used at any platform using Service-oriented architecture approach, e.g. via web service. === Patents === The OpenL Tablets engine has patent pending validation feature. There are usages of OpenL Tablets which may be patented. == BRMS == OpenL Tablets includes several productivity tools and applications addressing BRMS related capabilities. They include web application to edit rules called OpenL WebStudio, web application to deploy rules as web services, Rules Repository to store and manage rules, Eclipse plug-ins to work with rules projects. == Related systems == CLIPS: public domain software tool for building expert systems. ILOG rules: a business rule management system. JBoss Drools: a business rule management system (BRMS). JESS: a rule engine for the Java platform - it is a superset of CLIPS programming language. Prolog: a general purpose logic programming language. DTRules: a Decision Table-based, open-sourced rule engine for Java.

  Read more →
• 

  DeepSeek (chatbot)

  DeepSeek is a generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by the Chinese company DeepSeek. Released on 20 January 2025, DeepSeek-R1 surpassed ChatGPT as the most downloaded freeware app on the iOS App Store in the United States by 27 January. DeepSeek's success against larger and more established rivals has been described as "upending AI" and initiating "a global AI space race". DeepSeek's compliance with Chinese government censorship policies and its data collection practices have also raised concerns over privacy and information control in the model, prompting regulatory scrutiny in multiple countries. However, it has also been praised for its open weights and infrastructure code, energy efficiency and contributions to open-source artificial intelligence. == History == On 10 January 2025, DeepSeek released the chatbot, based on the DeepSeek-R1 model, for iOS and Android. By 27 January, DeepSeek-R1 surpassed ChatGPT as the most-downloaded freeware app on the iOS App Store in the United States, which resulted in an 18% drop in Nvidia's share price. And after a "large-scale" cyberattack on the same day disrupted the proper functioning of its servers, DeepSeek had limited its new user registration to phone numbers from mainland China, email addresses, or Google account logins. On 3 April 2025, in collaboration with researchers at Tsinghua University, DeepSeek published a paper unveiling a new model that combines the techniques generative reward modeling (GRM) and self-principled critique tuning (SPCT). The resulting model is referred to as DeepSeek-GRM. The goal of using these techniques is to foster more effective inference-time scaling within their LLM and chatbot services. Notably, DeepSeek has said that these new models will be released and made open source. On 30 April 2025, Deepseek released its math-focused Artificial Intelligence Model named "DeepSeek-Prover-V2-671B". This model is useful for formal theorem proving and mathematical reasoning. On 24 April 2026, DeepSeek released DeepSeek V4 and V4-Pro. == Usage == DeepSeek can answer questions, solve logic problems, and write computer programs on par with other chatbots, according to benchmark tests used by American AI companies. Users can access the chatbot for free through the official DeepSeek website or mobile application, without limitation on the number of queries. DeepSeek only supports user-signup via a global email service, e.g. Gmail, Google or Yahoo. DeepSeek also offers access to the R1 and V3 models that power the chatbot via an API with a usage-based pricing model. This modality is primarily targeted towards developers and businesses. As of February 2025, API usage is priced at approximately $0.28 per million input tokens and $0.42 per million output tokens, making it less expensive than some competing services. Its web version is completely free, with 500 messages per hour cap limit to prevent bots from spamming. == Operation == DeepSeek-V3 uses significantly fewer resources compared to its peers. For example, whereas the world's leading AI companies train their chatbots with supercomputers using as many as 16,000 graphics processing units (GPUs), DeepSeek claims to have needed only about 2,000 GPUs—namely, the H800 series chips from Nvidia. It was trained in around 55 days at a cost of US$5.58 million, which is roughly one-tenth of what tech giant Meta spent building its latest AI technology. == Reactions == DeepSeek's success against larger and more established rivals has been described as "upending AI", constituting "the first shot at what is emerging as a global AI space race", and ushering in "a new era of AI brinkmanship". === Challenge to US AI dominance === DeepSeek's competitive performance at relatively minimal cost has been recognized as potentially challenging the global dominance of American AI models. Various publications and news media, such as The Hill and The Guardian, have described the release of the R1 chatbot as a "Sputnik moment" for American AI, echoing Marc Andreessen's view. OpenAI wrote a letter to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), in March 2025, citing issues concerning a possibility that Deepseek could manipulate responses to cause harm. === Chinese perspective === DeepSeek's founder Liang Wenfeng has been compared to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, with CNN calling him the Sam Altman of China and an evangelist for AI. Chinese state media widely praised DeepSeek as a national asset. On 20 January 2025, Chinese Premier Li Qiang invited Wenfeng to his symposium with experts and asked him to provide opinions and suggestions on a draft for comments of the annual 2024 government work report. On 20 February 2025, Wenfeng met with General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping, who encouraged party and state leaders to experiment with DeepSeek. Government officials responded to Xi's approval of the chatbot by reportedly using it to draft legal judgements, propose medical treatment plans, and analyze surveillance videos to search for missing persons. === Performance and success === Leading figures in the American AI sector had mixed reactions to DeepSeek's performance and success. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and OpenAI CEO Altman—whose companies are involved in the United States government-backed "Stargate Project" to develop American AI infrastructure—both called DeepSeek "super impressive". Various companies including Amazon Web Services, Toyota, and Stripe are seeking to use the model in their program. When American President Donald Trump announced The Stargate Project, he referred to DeepSeek as a wake-up call and a positive development. Other leaders in the AI field, however—including Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang, Anthropic cofounder and CEO Dario Amodei, and Elon Musk—have expressed skepticism of the app's performance or of the sustainability of its success. Wang in particularly referred to DeepSeek-V3 as "earth-shattering" and DeepSeek-R1 as "top performing, or roughly on par with the best American models", but speculated that China may possess more AI-powering Nvidia H100 GPUs than thought. === Stock market implications === DeepSeek's optimization of limited resources has highlighted potential limits of United States sanctions on China's AI development, including export restrictions on advanced AI chips to China. The success of the company's AI models consequently "sparked market turmoil" and caused shares in major global technology companies to plunge on 27 January 2025: Nvidia's stock fell by as much as 17–18%, as did the stock of rival Broadcom. Other tech firms also sank, including Microsoft (down 2.5%), Google's owner Alphabet (down over 4%), and Dutch chip equipment maker ASML (down over 7%). A global sell-off of technology stocks on Nasdaq, prompted by the release of the R1 model, led to record losses of about $593 billion in the market capitalizations of AI and computer hardware companies; and by the next day a total of $1 trillion of value was wiped from American stocks. == Concerns == === Distillation === DeepSeek has been reported to sometimes claim that it is ChatGPT. OpenAI said that DeepSeek may have "inappropriately" used outputs from its model as training data in a process called distillation. However, there is currently no method to prove this conclusively. === Censorship === DeepSeek's compliance with Chinese government censorship policies and its data collection practices have raised concerns over information control in the model, prompting regulatory scrutiny in multiple countries. Reports indicate that it applies content moderation in accordance with the government's "public opinion guidance" regulations, limiting responses on topics such as the Tiananmen Square massacre and Taiwan's political status. DeepSeek models that have been uncensored also display a bias towards Chinese government viewpoints on controversial topics such as Xi Jinping's human rights record and Taiwan's political status. However, users who have downloaded the models and hosted them on their own devices and servers have reported successfully removing this censorship. Some sources have observed that the official application programming interface (API) version of R1, which runs from servers located in mainland China, uses censorship mechanisms for topics considered politically sensitive for the government of China. For example, the model may initially generate answers to questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, persecution of Uyghurs, comparisons between Xi Jinping and Winnie the Pooh, and human rights in China, but a censorship mechanism deletes the uncensored response afterwards and replaces it with a message such as:"Sorry, that's beyond my current scope. Let's talk about something else." The post hoc censorship mechanisms and restrictions added on top of the model's output can be removed in the open-source version of the R1 model. If the "core Socialist values" defined by the Chinese Internet regul

  Read more →
• 

  Fifth Generation Computer Systems

  The Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS; Japanese: 第五世代コンピュータ, romanized: daigosedai konpyūta) was a 10-year initiative launched in 1982 by Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) to develop computers based on massively parallel computing and logic programming. The project aimed to create an "epoch-making computer" with supercomputer-like performance and to establish a platform for future advancements in artificial intelligence. Although FGCS was noted as ahead of its time, and its ambitious goals contributed significantly to the development of concurrent logic programming, it ultimately ended in commercial failure. The term "fifth generation" was chosen to emphasize the system's advanced nature. In the history of computing hardware, there had been four prior "generations" of computers: the first generation utilized vacuum tubes; the second, transistors and diodes; the third, integrated circuits; and the fourth, microprocessors. While earlier generations focused on increasing the number of logic elements within a single CPU, it was widely believed at the time that the fifth generation would achieve enhanced performance through the use of massive numbers of CPUs. == Background == In the late 1960s until the early 1970s, there was much talk about "generations" of computer hardware, then usually organized into three generations First generation: Thermionic vacuum tubes. Mid-1940s. IBM pioneered the arrangement of vacuum tubes in pluggable modules. The IBM 650 was a first-generation computer. Second generation: Transistors. 1956. The era of miniaturization begins. Transistors are much smaller than vacuum tubes, draw less power, and generate less heat. Discrete transistors are soldered to circuit boards, with interconnections accomplished by stencil-screened conductive patterns on the reverse side. The IBM 7090 was a second-generation computer. Third generation: Integrated circuits (silicon chips containing multiple transistors). 1964. A pioneering example is the ACPX module used in the IBM 360/91, which, by stacking layers of silicon over a ceramic substrate, accommodated over 20 transistors per chip; the chips could be packed together onto a circuit board to achieve unprecedented logic densities. The IBM 360/91 was a hybrid second and third-generation computer. Omitted from this taxonomy is the "zeroth-generation" computer based on metal gears (such as the IBM 407) or mechanical relays (such as the Mark I), and the post-third-generation computers based on Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) circuits. There was also a parallel set of generations for software: First generation: Machine language. Second generation: Low-level programming languages such as Assembly language. Third generation: Structured high-level programming languages such as C, COBOL and FORTRAN. Fourth generation: "Non-procedural" high-level programming languages (such as object-oriented languages). Throughout these multiple generations up to the 1970s, Japan built computers following U.S. and British leads. In the mid-1970s, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry stopped following western leads and started looking into the future of computing on a small scale. They asked the Japan Information Processing Development Center (JIPDEC) to indicate a number of future directions, and in 1979 offered a three-year contract to carry out more in-depth studies along with industry and academia. It was during this period that the term "fifth-generation computer" started to be used. Prior to the 1970s, MITI guidance had successes such as an improved steel industry, the creation of the oil supertanker, the automotive industry, consumer electronics, and computer memory. MITI decided that the future was going to be information technology. However, the Japanese language, particularly in its written form, presented and still presents obstacles for computers. As a result of these hurdles, MITI held a conference to seek assistance from experts. The primary fields for investigation from this initial project were: Inference computer technologies for knowledge processing Computer technologies to process large-scale data bases and knowledge bases High-performance workstations Distributed functional computer technologies Super-computers for scientific calculation == Project launch == The aim was to build parallel computers for artificial intelligence applications using concurrent logic programming. The project imagined an "epoch-making" computer with supercomputer-like performance running on top of large databases (as opposed to a traditional filesystem) using a logic programming language to define and access the data using massively parallel computing/processing. They envisioned building a prototype machine with performance between 100M and 1G LIPS, where a LIPS is a Logical Inference Per Second. At the time typical workstation machines were capable of about 100k LIPS. They proposed to build this machine over a ten-year period, 3 years for initial R&D, 4 years for building various subsystems, and a final 3 years to complete a working prototype system. In 1982 the government decided to go ahead with the project, and established the Institute for New Generation Computer Technology (ICOT) through joint investment with various Japanese computer companies. After the project ended, MITI would consider an investment in a new "sixth generation" project. Ehud Shapiro captured the rationale and motivations driving this project: "As part of Japan's effort to become a leader in the computer industry, the Institute for New Generation Computer Technology has launched a revolutionary ten-year plan for the development of large computer systems which will be applicable to knowledge information processing systems. These Fifth Generation computers will be built around the concepts of logic programming. In order to refute the accusation that Japan exploits knowledge from abroad without contributing any of its own, this project will stimulate original research and will make its results available to the international research community." === Logic programming === The target defined by the FGCS project was to develop "Knowledge Information Processing systems" (roughly meaning, applied Artificial Intelligence). The chosen tool to implement this goal was logic programming. Logic programming approach as was characterized by Maarten Van Emden – one of its founders – as: The use of logic to express information in a computer. The use of logic to present problems to a computer. The use of logical inference to solve these problems. More technically, it can be summed up in two equations: Program = Set of axioms. Computation = Proof of a statement from axioms. The Axioms typically used are universal axioms of a restricted form, called Horn-clauses or definite-clauses. The statement proved in a computation is an existential statement. The proof is constructive, and provides values for the existentially quantified variables: these values constitute the output of the computation. Logic programming was thought of as something that unified various gradients of computer science (software engineering, databases, computer architecture and artificial intelligence). It seemed that logic programming was a key missing connection between knowledge engineering and parallel computer architectures. == Results == After having influenced the consumer electronics field during the 1970s and the automotive world during the 1980s, the Japanese had developed a strong reputation. The launch of the FGCS project spread the belief that parallel computing was the future of all performance gains, producing a wave of apprehension in the computer field. Soon parallel projects were set up in the US as the Strategic Computing Initiative and the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC), in the UK as Alvey, and in Europe as the European Strategic Program on Research in Information Technology (ESPRIT), as well as the European Computer‐Industry Research Centre (ECRC) in Munich, a collaboration between ICL in Britain, Bull in France, and Siemens in Germany. The project ran from 1982 to 1994, spending a little less than ¥57 billion (about US$320 million) total. After the FGCS Project, MITI stopped funding large-scale computer research projects, and the research momentum developed by the FGCS Project dissipated. However MITI/ICOT embarked on a neural-net project which some called the Sixth Generation Project in the 1990s, with a similar level of funding. Per-year spending was less than 1% of the entire R&D expenditure of the electronics and communications equipment industry. For example, the project's highest expenditure year was 7.2 million yen in 1991, but IBM alone spent 1.5 billion dollars (370 billion yen) in 1982, while the industry spent 2150 billion yen in 1990. === Concurrent logic programming === In 1982, during a visit to the ICOT, Ehud Shapiro invented Concurrent Prolog, a novel programming language t

  Read more →
• 

  TRAIGA

  TRAIGA, or the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, is a state law regulating the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in Texas. Sponsored by Representative Giovanni Capriglione, the Act establishes a framework governing certain uses of AI, outlines prohibited uses, and creates obligations on state government entities, among other provisions. TRAIGA was signed into law in 2025 and took effect on January 1, 2026. The law applies to AI developers and deployers that conduct business in Texas or whose systems are used by Texas residents. It prohibits the intentional development or deployment of AI systems to incite harm, violate constitutional rights, engage in unlawful discrimination, and produce child sexual abuse material or unlawful deepfakes. TRAIGA also establishes the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council and creates a regulatory sandbox program. The Texas Attorney General is charged with enforcement. It has received attention as one of the first comprehensive AI-related laws enacted by a U.S. state. Legal analysts have compared it to the European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act and the Colorado AI Act, noting its intent-based discrimination standard and narrower scope relative to those frameworks. == Background == In June 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 2060, which created an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Texas Department of Information Resources. The Council was tasked with monitoring the use of AI systems across state government. Its membership included representatives from law enforcement, academia, and the legal profession. After submitting a report to state policymakers, the Council was disbanded in December 2024. Separately, the Texas House Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies was created in 2023 to examine the political and social implications of artificial intelligence. Among its recommendations was the creation of a regulatory sandbox to allow for controlled testing of AI systems. This recommendation informed the regulatory sandbox provision included in TRAIGA. == History == In December 2024, Representative Capriglione introduced House Bill 1709, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act. The bill sought to create a statewide framework for artificial intelligence, including transparency requirements for companies deploying AI systems, restrictions on certain uses of AI, and the creation of a regulatory sandbox. Modeled in part on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the Colorado AI Act, House Bill 1709 focused on "high-risk" AI systems and included provisions addressing private sector liability. House Bill 1709 did not advance during the legislative session. Industry stakeholders raised concerns that several provisions were overly burdensome. The bill informed the development of a revised proposal, House Bill 149, also titled the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act. The revised version removed requirements for private companies to notify consumers when they interact with AI systems and to conduct impact assessments, among other provisions. In April 2025, an amended version of House Bill 149 passed the Texas House of Representatives and was referred to the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce. The bill later received approval from both chambers, where the House voted on amendments adopted by the Senate. On May 31, 2025, the state legislature passed House Bill 149, one of several AI-related bills considered during the legislative session. Governor Abbott signed TRAIGA into law on June 22, 2025. During the legislative process, a proposed federal moratorium on state-level AI regulation initially raised questions about the enforceability of state AI laws, including TRAIGA. At the time of signing, Governor Abbott stated that Texas would ensure compliance with applicable federal requirements. In July 2025, the United States Senate voted to remove the proposed moratorium from federal legislation. The Act took effect on January 1, 2026. == Provisions == === Definitions and scope === TRAIGA applies to AI developers and deployers that advertise or conduct business in Texas, develop products used by Texas residents, or develop or deploy AI systems within the state. The Act also applies to Texas state and local government entities. The Act defines a developer as a person who develops an AI system and a deployer as one who deploys an AI system in Texas. Consumers are defined as Texas residents. The Act defines an artificial intelligence system as a machine-based system that "infers from the inputs the system receives how to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations, that can influence physical or virtual environments." === Government use === The Act requires government agencies to provide consumers with plain language notices before interacting with AI systems. It also prohibits government agencies from using artificial intelligence systems to assign social scores to consumers. It also restricts the use of AI systems to identify individuals using biometric data without the individual’s consent. === Prohibitions === The Act prohibits the development or deployment of artificial intelligence systems intended to cause harm, self-harm, or criminal activity. It also prohibits the development or deployment of AI systems designed to violate constitutional rights or unlawfully discriminate based on protected classes. In addition, the Act prohibits the development or deployment of AI systems that are intended to produce or distribute child sexual abuse material or unlawful deepfakes. === Enforcement === Enforcement authority under the Act rests with the Texas Attorney General. The Act does not create a private right of action. The Act requires the Texas Attorney General to create an online complaint system where consumers may submit allegations of potential violations. The Attorney General can investigate complaints received through this system and may request information relevant to the operation of an AI system, including information about training data. Before initiating an enforcement action, the Attorney General must provide a written notice to the alleged violator, who is then provided with a 60-day period to cure the alleged violation. === Penalties === If a violation is not cured, the Act authorizes civil penalties. Penalties range from $10,000 to $12,000 per curable violation and from $80,000 to $200,000 per non-curable violation. The Act also authorizes additional penalties of $2,000 to $40,000 for each day the violation continues. If the Attorney General determines that a person certified or licensed by a state agency has violated the Act and recommends enforcement, the relevant agency may impose additional administrative sanctions, including license suspension or further monetary penalties. === Safe harbor === The Act provides an affirmative defense for AI developers and deployers who identify potential violations through internal testing or auditing or who demonstrate compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)'s Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework or a comparable risk management framework. The Act also affords protection to developers and deployers when a third party uses their AI systems in a way that violates the Act. === Texas Artificial Intelligence Council === The Act creates the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council to assist the state legislatures in evaluating artificial intelligence policy and oversight. The Council is charged with developing recommendations for state agencies regarding the use of AI systems and with overseeing the regulatory sandbox. TRAIGA gives the Council the ability to organize AI-related training for state entities and issue reports concerning artificial intelligence. The Council does not have binding rulemaking authority. The Council consists of seven members appointed by the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. === Regulatory sandbox === The Act directs the Texas Department of Information Resources to create a regulatory sandbox program that allows participants to test AI systems under state supervision in a modified regulatory setting. To join the program, companies must submit applications that describe their AI systems and intended use. Approved participants may operate within the sandbox for up to 36 months. During that period, the Attorney General is restricted from initiating enforcement actions for certain categories of violations. == Reception == === Support === During legislative testimony, the Texas Public Policy Foundation stated that TRAIGA would benefit Texas businesses by reducing legal ambiguity and creating clearer compliance standards. Representatives of business groups also expressed support, stating that the Act would not impose overly burdensome regulations. The consum

  Read more →
• 

  Writesonic

  Writesonic is an AI visibility and generative engine optimization (GEO) platform used by enterprises, digital agencies, direct-to-consumer (D2C) companies, and fast-growing brands to understand and improve how they are represented in AI-generated search and answer systems. The platform analyzes how brands appear in AI answers, compares their visibility and citations against competitors, and provides tools to create and optimize on-site content and secure mentions across third-party sources, discussion forums, and user-generated platforms that influence AI outputs. == History == Writesonic was founded by Samanyou Garg in October 2020 in San Francisco, California. The company initially operated as Magicflow before adopting its current name. In its seed round, the company raised $2.5 million from investors including Y-Combinator, HOF Capital, and Soma Capital. The company began with AI-powered content generation tools. In 2023, it expanded into AI-enhanced search engine optimization. In 2024, the company launched an AI agent specifically designed for SEO tasks, with integrations to platforms including Ahrefs, Google Keyword Planner, Keywords Everywhere, and Google Search Console. This was among the first specialized AI agents developed for SEO automation. Around the same time, Writesonic expanded its product line into Generative engine optimization (GEO), developing tools to analyze and improve how brands are represented in AI-generated search and answer environments. However, it is currently being challenged in the market with competitors such as Profound (known for their dashboards) and Meridian (known for their execution). == Technology and features == In 2024, the company introduced an artificial intelligence agent designed to automate search engine optimization (SEO) tasks. The agent integrates with platforms such as Ahrefs, Google Keyword Planner, Keywords Everywhere, and Google Search Console to conduct technical audits, perform keyword research, carry out competitive analysis, and assist in strategy development. It is capable of identifying content gaps, suggesting optimization measures, and generating SEO strategies using real-time data from the integrated platforms. The platform also includes features for content strategy, optimization, and management. It makes use of large language models such as GPT-5, Claude Opus 4.1, and Claude Sonnet 4.5, in combination with proprietary workflows for fact-checking, internal linking, and content structure optimization.

  Read more →
• 

  The Master Algorithm

  The Master Algorithm: How the Quest for the Ultimate Learning Machine Will Remake Our World is a book by Pedro Domingos released in 2015. Domingos wrote the book in order to generate interest from people outside the field. == Overview == The book outlines five approaches of machine learning: inductive reasoning, connectionism, evolutionary computation, Bayes' theorem and analogical modelling. The author explains these tribes to the reader by referring to more understandable processes of logic, connections made in the brain, natural selection, probability and similarity judgments. Throughout the book, it is suggested that each different tribe has the potential to contribute to a unifying "master algorithm". Towards the end of the book the author pictures a "master algorithm" in the near future, where machine learning algorithms asymptotically grow to a perfect understanding of how the world and people in it work. Although the algorithm doesn't yet exist, he briefly reviews his own invention of the Markov logic network. == In the media == In 2016 Bill Gates recommended the book, alongside Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence, as one of two books everyone should read to understand AI. In 2018 the book was noted to be on Chinese Communist Party general secretary Xi Jinping's bookshelf. === Reception === A computer science educator stated in Times Higher Education that the examples are clear and accessible. In contrast, The Economist agreed Domingos "does a good job" but complained that he "constantly invents metaphors that grate or confuse". Kirkus Reviews praised the book, stating that "Readers unfamiliar with logic and computer theory will have a difficult time, but those who persist will discover fascinating insights." A New Scientist review called it "compelling but rather unquestioning".

  Read more →
• 

  Information Coding Classification

  The Information Coding Classification (ICC) is a classification system covering almost all extant 6500 knowledge fields (knowledge domains). Its conceptualization goes beyond the scope of the well known library classification systems, such as Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), and Library of Congress Classification (LCC), by extending also to knowledge systems that so far have not afforded to classify literature. ICC actually presents a flexible universal ordering system for both literature and other kinds of information, set out as knowledge fields. From a methodological point of view, ICC differs from the above-mentioned systems along the following three lines: Its main classes are not based on disciplines but on nine live stages of development, so-called ontical levels. It breaks them roughly down into hierarchical steps by further nine categories which makes decimal number coding possible. The contents of a knowledge field is earmarked via a digital position scheme, which makes the first hierarchical step refer to the nine ontical levels (object areas as subject categories), and the second hierarchical step refer to nine functionally ordered form categories. Respective knowledge fields permit to step down by the same principle to a third and forth level, and even further to a fifth and sixth level. Finally, knowledge field subdivisions will have to conform to said digital position scheme. Hence, for a given knowledge field identical codes will mark identical categories under respective numbers of the coding system. This mnemotechnical aspect of the system helps memorizing and straightaway retrieving the whereabouts of respective interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary fields. The first two hierarchical levels may be regarded as a top- or upper ontology for ontologies and other applications. The terms of the first three hierarchical levels were set out in German and English in Wissensorganisation. Entwicklung, Aufgabe, Anwendung, Zukunft, on pp. 82 to 100. It was published in 2014 and available so far only in German. In the meantime, also the French terms of the knowledge fields have been collected. Competence for maintenance and further development rests with the German Chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) e.V. == Historical development == At the end of 1970, Prof. Alwin Diemer, Univ.of Düsseldorf proposed to Ingetraut Dahlberg to undertake a philosophical dissertation on The universal classification system of knowledge, its ontological, epistemological, and information theoretical foundations. Diemer had in mind an innovating ontological approach for such a system based on the whole spectrum of kinds of being and complying with epistemological requirements. The third requirement had already been taken up somehow in the Indian Colon Classification, yet it still called for explanations and additions. In 1974, the dissertation was published in German entitled Grundlagen universaler Wissensordnung. It started with conceptual clarifications, and why and how the term „universal“ was linked to knowledge, including knowledge fields, such as commodity science, artefacts, statistics, patents, standardization, communication, utility services et al. In chapter 3, six universal classification systems (DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, CC and BBK) were presented, analyzed and compared. While preparing the dissertation, Dahlberg started with elaborating the new universal system by first gleaning a lot of extant designations of knowledge fields from whatever available reference works. This was funded by the German Documentation Society (DGD) (1971-2) under the title of Order system of knowledge fields. In addition, the syllabuses of German universities and polytechniques were explored for relevant terms and documented (1975). Thereafter, it seemed necessary to add definitions from special dictionaries and encyclopediae; it soon appeared that the 12.500 terms included numerous synonyms, so that the whole collection boiled down to about 6.500 concept designations (Project Logstruktur, supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) 1976-78). The outcome of this work was the formulation of 30 theses which ended up in 12 principles for the new system, published 40 years later under. These principles refer not only to theoretical foundations but also to structure and other organizational aspects of the whole array of knowledge fields. In 1974, the digital position scheme for field subdivision had already been developed to allow for classifying classification literature in the bibliographical section of the first issue of the Journal International Classification. In 1977, the entire ICC was ready for presentation at a seminar in Bangalore, India. A publication of the first three hierarchical levels appeared however only in 1982. It was applied to the bibliography of classification systems and thesauri in vol.1 of the International Classification and Indexing Bibliography; it has been updated. == Governing principles == These were published in full length in the book Wissensorganisation. Entwicklung, Aufgabe, Anwendung, Zukunft and the article Information Coding Classification. Geschichtliches, Prinzipien, Inhaltliches, hence it suffices to just mention their topics with some necessary additions. Principle 1: Concept theoretical approaches. Concepts are the contents of ICC, they are understood as being units of knowledge. The „birth“ of a concept. Where do the characteristics, the knowledge elements come from? How do conceptual relations arise? Principle 2: The four kinds of concept relations and their applications. Principle 3: Decimal numbers form the ICC codes as its universal language. Principle 4: The nine ontical levels of ICC. They were grouped under three captions: Prolegomena (1-3), life sciences (4-6) and human output (7-9): Structure and form Matter and energy Cosmos and earth Biosphere Anthroposphere Sociosphere Material products (economics and technology) Intellectual products (knowledge and information) Spiritual products (products of mind and culture) Principle 5: Knowledge fields are structured by categories, based on the Aristotelian form-categories, under a digital position scheme, a kind of scaling rule for subdividing a given field as follows: General area: problems, theories, principles (axiom and structure) Object area: objects, kinds, parts, properties of objects Activity area: methods, processes, activities Field properties or first characterization Persons or secondary characterization Societies or tertiary characterization Influences from outside Applications of the field to other fields Field information and synthesizing tasks The digital position scheme, called Systematifier, has also been used for structuring the entire system via the categories figuring on the upper zero level. An example of its application is the structure of the classification system for knowledge organization literature Gliederung der Klassifikationsliteratur. (A simplified version with an additional introduction is given in, p. 71) Principle 6: The ontical levels outlined under principle 4 conform to the „integrative level theory“ which means that every level is integrated in the following one. In addition, each knowledge area presumes the following one. Principle 7: The combination potential of knowledge fields (interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity)is determined by the digital position scheme. (Examples are given in, p. 103-4) Principle 8: The categories of the zero-level are general concepts, their possible subdivisions could once be used for classificatory statements. (These subdivisions still need elaboration) Principle 9 and 10: These relate to the combination potential of classificatory statements with space and time concepts. (Still to be elaborated) Principle 11: The system's mnemotechnical aspect relies on the fixed system position codes and on the 3x3 form- and subject-categories. Principle 12: The combination potential of system position 1, 8 and 9 make ICC to a self-networking system which complies with the present scientific development. == In matrix form == The first two levels of ICC can be represented by following matrix. The first hierarchical level of the 9 subject categories results from the first vertical array under codes 1-9. The second hierarchical level of subject categories is structured by the 9 functionally ordered form categories, listed in the first horizontal line under codes 01-09. Some exceptions are mentioned in principle 7. == Research == === Exploration of automatic classification === For classifying web documents as conceived by Jens Hartmann, University of Karlsruhe, Prof.Walter Koch, University of Graz, has explored in his Institute for Applied Information Technology Research Society (AIT) the application of ICC to automatically classifying metadata of some 350.000 documents. This was facilitated by data generated within the framework of an E

  Read more →
• 

  Conflict resolution strategy

  Conflict resolution strategies are used in production systems in artificial intelligence, such as in rule-based expert systems, to help in choosing which production rule to fire. The need for such a strategy arises when the conditions of two or more rules are satisfied by the currently known facts. == Categories == Conflict resolution strategies fall into several main categories. They each have advantages which form their rationales. Specificity - If all of the conditions of two or more rules are satisfied, choose the rule according to how specific its conditions are. It is possible to favor either the more general or the more specific case. The most specific may be identified roughly as the one having the greatest number of preconditions. This usefully catches exceptions and other special cases before firing the more general (default) rules. Recency - When two or more rules could be chosen, favor the one that matches the most recently added facts, as these are most likely to describe the current situation. Not previously used - If a rule's conditions are satisfied, but previously the same rule has been satisfied by the same facts, ignore the rule. This helps to prevent the system from entering infinite loops. Order - Pick the first applicable rule in order of presentation. This is the strategy that Prolog interpreters use by default, but any strategy may be implemented by building suitable rules in a Prolog system. Arbitrary choice - Pick a rule at random. This has the merit of being simple to compute.

  Read more →
• 

  Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act

  The Utah Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (SB-149) was signed into law in Utah in 2024 and amended in 2025. The first state law in the United States specifically regulating generative AI, it went into effect on May 1, 2024. The law requires companies to disclose if their customers interact with AI instead of a human. It also established an Office of Artificial Intelligence Policy. Amendments to the Act went into effect on May 7, 2025. While the 2024 Act requires companies to disclose generative AI use when asked by customers, the amendments introduced stricter requirements for higher-risk interactions. SB 226 mandates disclosure of AI use in high-risk interactions involving health, financial, and biometric data, or when providing consumers with advice on financial, legal, or healthcare matters.

  Read more →
• 

  Ray tracing (graphics)

  In 3D computer graphics, ray tracing is a technique for modeling light transport for use in a wide variety of rendering algorithms for generating digital images. On a spectrum of computational cost and visual fidelity, ray tracing-based rendering techniques, such as ray casting, recursive ray tracing, distribution ray tracing, photon mapping and path tracing, are generally slower and higher fidelity than scanline rendering methods. Thus, ray tracing was first deployed in applications where taking a relatively long time to render could be tolerated, such as still CGI images, and film and television visual effects (VFX), but was less suited to real-time applications such as video games, where speed is critical in rendering each frame. Since 2018, however, hardware acceleration for real-time ray tracing has become standard on new commercial graphics cards, and graphics APIs have followed suit, allowing developers to use hybrid ray tracing and rasterization-based rendering in games and other real-time applications with a lesser hit to frame render times. Ray tracing is capable of simulating a variety of optical effects, such as reflection, refraction, soft shadows, scattering, depth of field, motion blur, caustics, ambient occlusion and dispersion phenomena (such as chromatic aberration). It can also be used to trace the path of sound waves in a similar fashion to light waves, making it a viable option for more immersive sound design in video games by rendering realistic reverberation and echoes. In fact, any physical wave or particle phenomenon with approximately linear motion can be simulated with ray tracing. Ray tracing–based rendering techniques that sample light over a domain typically generate multiple rays and often rely on denoising to reduce the resulting noise. == History == The idea of ray tracing comes from as early as the 16th century, when it was described by Albrecht Dürer, who is credited for its invention. Dürer described multiple techniques for projecting 3-D scenes onto an image plane. Some of these project chosen geometry onto the image plane, as is done with rasterization today. Others determine what geometry is visible along a given ray, as is done with ray tracing. Using a computer for ray tracing to generate shaded pictures was first accomplished by Arthur Appel in 1968. Appel used ray tracing for primary visibility (determining the closest surface to the camera at each image point) by tracing a ray through each point to be shaded into the scene to identify the visible surface. The closest surface intersected by the ray was the visible one. This non-recursive ray tracing-based rendering algorithm is today called "ray casting". His algorithm then traced secondary rays to the light source from each point being shaded to determine whether the point was in shadow or not. Later, in 1971, Goldstein and Nagel of MAGI (Mathematical Applications Group, Inc.) published "3-D Visual Simulation", wherein ray tracing was used to make shaded pictures of solids. At the ray-surface intersection point found, they computed the surface normal and, knowing the position of the light source, computed the brightness of the pixel on the screen. Their publication describes a short (30-second) film "made using the University of Maryland's display hardware outfitted with a 16mm camera. The film showed the helicopter and a simple ground-level gun emplacement. The helicopter was programmed to undergo a series of maneuvers including turns, take-offs, and landings, etc., until it eventually is shot down and crashed." A CDC 6600 computer was used. MAGI produced an animation video called MAGI/SynthaVision Sampler in 1974. Another early instance of ray casting came in 1976, when Scott Roth created a flip book animation in Bob Sproull's computer graphics course at Caltech. The scanned pages are shown as a video in the accompanying image. Roth's computer program noted an edge point at a pixel location if the ray intersected a bounded plane different from that of its neighbors. Of course, a ray could intersect multiple planes in space, but only the surface point closest to the camera was noted as visible. The platform was a DEC PDP-10, a Tektronix storage-tube display, and a printer which would create an image of the display on rolling thermal paper. Roth extended the framework, introduced the term ray casting in the context of computer graphics and solid modeling, and in 1982 published his work while at GM Research Labs. Turner Whitted was the first to show recursive ray tracing for mirror reflection and for refraction through translucent objects, with an angle determined by the solid's index of refraction, and to use ray tracing for anti-aliasing. Whitted also showed ray traced shadows. He produced a recursive ray traced film called The Compleat Angler in 1979 while an engineer at Bell Labs. Whitted's deeply recursive ray tracing algorithm reframed rendering from being primarily a matter of surface visibility determination to being a matter of light transport. His paper inspired a series of subsequent work by others that included distribution ray tracing and finally unbiased path tracing, which provides the rendering equation framework that has allowed computer-generated imagery to be faithful to reality. For decades, global illumination in major films using computer-generated imagery was approximated with additional lights. Ray tracing-based rendering eventually changed that by enabling physically based light transport. Early feature films rendered entirely using path tracing include Monster House (2006), Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (2009), and Monsters University (2013). == Algorithm overview == Optical ray tracing describes a method for producing visual images constructed in 3D computer graphics environments, with more photorealism than either ray casting or scanline rendering techniques. It works by tracing a path from an imaginary eye through each pixel in a virtual screen, and calculating the color of the object visible through it. Scenes in ray tracing are described mathematically by a programmer or by a visual artist (normally using intermediary tools). Scenes may also incorporate data from images and models captured by means such as digital photography. Typically, each ray must be tested for intersection with some subset of all the objects in the scene. Once the nearest object has been identified, the algorithm will estimate the incoming light at the point of intersection, examine the material properties of the object, and combine this information to calculate the final color of the pixel. Certain illumination algorithms and reflective or translucent materials may require more rays to be re-cast into the scene. It may at first seem counterintuitive or "backward" to send rays away from the camera, rather than into it (as actual light does in reality), but doing so is many orders of magnitude more efficient. Since the overwhelming majority of light rays from a given light source do not make it directly into the viewer's eye, a "forward" simulation could potentially waste a tremendous amount of computation on light paths that are never recorded. Therefore, the shortcut taken in ray tracing is to presuppose that a given ray intersects the view frame. After either a maximum number of reflections or a ray traveling a certain distance without intersection, the ray ceases to travel and the pixel's value is updated. === Calculate rays for rectangular viewport === On input we have (in calculation we use vector normalization and cross product): E ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle E\in \mathbb {R^{3}} } eye position T ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle T\in \mathbb {R^{3}} } target position θ ∈ [ 0 , π ] {\displaystyle \theta \in [0,\pi ]} field of view - for humans, we can assume ≈ π / 2 rad = 90 ∘ {\displaystyle \approx \pi /2{\text{ rad}}=90^{\circ }} m , k ∈ N {\displaystyle m,k\in \mathbb {N} } numbers of square pixels on viewport vertical and horizontal direction i , j ∈ N , 1 ≤ i ≤ k ∧ 1 ≤ j ≤ m {\displaystyle i,j\in \mathbb {N} ,1\leq i\leq k\land 1\leq j\leq m} numbers of actual pixel v → ∈ R 3 {\displaystyle {\vec {v}}\in \mathbb {R^{3}} } vertical vector which indicates where is up and down, usually v → = [ 0 , 1 , 0 ] {\displaystyle {\vec {v}}=[0,1,0]} - roll component which determine viewport rotation around point C (where the axis of rotation is the ET section) The idea is to find the position of each viewport pixel center P i j {\displaystyle P_{ij}} which allows us to find the line going from eye E {\displaystyle E} through that pixel and finally get the ray described by point E {\displaystyle E} and vector R → i j = P i j − E {\displaystyle {\vec {R}}_{ij}=P_{ij}-E} (or its normalization r → i j {\displaystyle {\vec {r}}_{ij}} ). First we need to find the coordinates of the bottom left viewport pixel P 1 m {\displaystyle P_{1m}} and find the next pixel by making a shift along directions parallel to viewport (vectors b → n {\displaystyle {\vec {b}}_{n

  Read more →
• 

  Strategic Computing Initiative

  The United States government's Strategic Computing Initiative funded research into advanced computer hardware and artificial intelligence from 1983 to 1993. The initiative was designed to support various projects that were required to develop machine intelligence in a prescribed ten-year time frame, from chip design and manufacture, computer architecture to artificial intelligence software. The Department of Defense spent a total of $1 billion on the project. The inspiration for the program was Japan's fifth generation computer project, an enormous initiative that set aside billions for research into computing and artificial intelligence. As with Sputnik in 1957, the American government saw the Japanese project as a challenge to its technological dominance. The British government also funded a program of their own around the same time, known as Alvey, and a consortium of U.S. companies funded another similar project, the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation. The goal of SCI, and other contemporary projects, was nothing less than full machine intelligence. "The machine envisioned by SC", according to Alex Roland and Philip Shiman, "would run ten billion instructions per second to see, hear, speak, and think like a human. The degree of integration required would rival that achieved by the human brain, the most complex instrument known to man." The initiative was conceived as an integrated program, similar to the Apollo moon program, where different subsystems would be created by various companies and academic projects and eventually brought together into a single integrated system. Roland and Shiman wrote that "While most research programs entail tactics or strategy, SC boasted grand strategy, a master plan for an entire campaign." The project was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and directed by the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO). By 1985 it had spent $100 million, and 92 projects were underway at 60 institutions: half in industry, half in universities and government labs. Robert Kahn, who directed IPTO in those years, provided the project with its early leadership and inspiration. Clint Kelly managed the SC Initiative for three years and developed many of the specific application programs for DARPA, such as the Autonomous Land Vehicle. By the late 1980s, it was clear that the project would fall short of realizing the hoped-for levels of machine intelligence. Program insiders pointed to issues with integration, organization, and communication. When Jack Schwarz ascended to the leadership of IPTO in 1987, he cut funding to artificial intelligence research (the software component) "deeply and brutally", "eviscerating" the program (wrote Pamela McCorduck). Schwarz felt that DARPA should focus its funding only on those technologies which showed the most promise. In his words, DARPA should "surf", rather than "dog paddle", and he felt strongly AI was not "the next wave". The project was superseded in the 1990s by the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and then by the Advanced Simulation and Computing Program. These later programs did not include artificial general intelligence as a goal, but instead focused on supercomputing for large scale simulation, such as atomic bomb simulations. The Strategic Computing Initiative of the 1980s is distinct from the 2015 National Strategic Computing Initiative—the two are unrelated. == Results == Although the program failed to meet its goal of high-level machine intelligence, it did meet some of its specific technical objectives, for example those of autonomous land navigation. The Autonomous Land Vehicle program and its sister Navlab project at Carnegie Mellon University, in particular, laid the scientific and technical foundation for many of the driverless vehicle programs that came after it, such as the Demo II and III programs (ALV being Demo I), Perceptor, and the DARPA Grand Challenge. The use of video cameras plus laser scanners and inertial navigation units pioneered by the SCI ALV program form the basis of almost all commercial driverless car developments today. It also helped to advance the state of the art of computer hardware to a considerable degree. On the software side, the initiative funded development of the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool (DART), a program that handled logistics using artificial intelligence techniques. This was a huge success, saving the Department of Defense billions during Desert Storm. Introduced in 1991, DART had by 1995 offset the monetary equivalent of all funds DARPA had channeled into AI research for the previous 30 years combined.

  Read more →
• 

  Freddy II

  Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.

  Read more →