AI Data Analyst Zalando

AI Data Analyst Zalando — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  The Outliner of Giants

  The Outliner of Giants was commercial outlining software. Like other outliners, it allowed the user to create a document consisting of a series of nested lists. It was one of a number of browser-based outliners that are delivered as a web application, used through a web browser, rather than being installed as a stand-alone application. The Outliner of Giants was released in 2009. The service was shut down on December 31, 2017 and only exports are allowed at this time. == Feature set == Unlike most other browser-based outliners - which often focus on providing a minimum viable product - the Outliner of Giants had much of the functionality typically associated with a desktop outliner, such as the ability to use of columns to structure information. However, The Outliner of Giants did not support offline editing, requiring an active internet connection in order to make changes to an outline document. === Outlining === Like all outliners, The Outliner of Giants supported the creation of a hierarchy of items, with users modifying the parent-child relationship between items in order to structure a document. This included the ability to promote or demote items up or down the hierarchy, or move an item up or down a list of siblings on the same level. The Outliner of Giants did not support the true cloning of items (where an item can appear to be in multiple places within the hierarchy at the same time), although it did support the copying of single or multiple nodes. === Import === The Outliner of Giants could import both plain text and the OPML XML format, which is commonly used to transfer data between outlining applications. === Editing === Outline documents could be edited using a WYSIWYG editor, as well as the Markdown, and Textile markup languages. === Annotation === The Outliner of Giants supported functions to annotate an outline, such as the ability to add colored labels, highlights and text, as well as tags and hashtags. === Collaboration === The Outliner of Giants supported real-time collaboration, where multiple users could edit the same document, and can see the changes made by another user as they happened. === Publication === Outlines created through The Outliner of Giants could be published directly online through the service, either as outlines, pages or in a blog format. === Export === The Outliner of Giants can export outline data as plain text, HTML, as well as directly to the Google Docs word processor.

  Read more →
• 

  Vivification

  Vivification is an operation on a description logic knowledge base to improve performance of a semantic reasoner. Vivification replaces a disjunction of concepts C 1 ⊔ C 2 … ⊔ C n {\displaystyle C_{1}\sqcup C_{2}\ldots \sqcup C_{n}} by the least common subsumer of the concepts C 1 , C 2 , … C n {\displaystyle C_{1},C_{2},\ldots C_{n}} . The goal of this operation is to improve the performance of the reasoner by replacing a complex set of concepts with a single concept which subsumes the original concepts. For example, consider the example given in (Cohen 92): Suppose we have the concept PIANIST(Jill) ∨ ORGANIST(Jill) {\displaystyle {\textrm {PIANIST(Jill)}}\vee {\textrm {ORGANIST(Jill)}}} . This concept can be vivified into a simpler concept KEYBOARD-PLAYER(Jill) {\displaystyle {\textrm {KEYBOARD-PLAYER(Jill)}}} . This summarization leads to an approximation that may not be exactly equivalent to the original. == An approximation == Knowledge base vivification is not necessarily exact. If the reasoner is operating under the open world assumption we may get surprising results. In the previous example, if we replace the disjunction with the vivified concept, we will arrive at a surprising results. First, we find that the reasoner will no longer classify Jill as either a pianist or an organist. Even though ORGANIST {\displaystyle {\textrm {ORGANIST}}} and PIANIST {\displaystyle {\textrm {PIANIST}}} are the only two sub-classes, under the OWA we can no longer classify Jill as playing one or the other. The reason is that there may be another keyboard instrument (e.g. a harpsichord) that Jill plays but which does not have a specific subclass.

  Read more →
• 

  ML.NET

  ML.NET is a free software machine learning library for the C# and F# programming languages. It also supports Python models when used together with NimbusML. The preview release of ML.NET included transforms for feature engineering like n-gram creation, and learners to handle binary classification, multi-class classification, and regression tasks. Additional ML tasks like anomaly detection and recommendation systems have since been added, and other approaches like deep learning will be included in future versions. == Machine learning == ML.NET brings model-based Machine Learning analytic and prediction capabilities to existing .NET developers. The framework is built upon .NET Core and .NET Standard inheriting the ability to run cross-platform on Linux, Windows and macOS. Although the ML.NET framework is new, its origins began in 2002 as a Microsoft Research project named TMSN (text mining search and navigation) for use internally within Microsoft products. It was later renamed to TLC (the learning code) around 2011. ML.NET was derived from the TLC library and has largely surpassed its parent says Dr. James McCaffrey, Microsoft Research. Developers can train a Machine Learning Model or reuse an existing Model by a 3rd party and run it on any environment offline. This means developers do not need to have a background in Data Science to use the framework. Support for the open-source Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX) Deep Learning model format was introduced from build 0.3 in ML.NET. The release included other notable enhancements such as Factorization Machines, LightGBM, Ensembles, LightLDA transform and OVA. The ML.NET integration of TensorFlow is enabled from the 0.5 release. Support for x86 & x64 applications was added to build 0.7 including enhanced recommendation capabilities with Matrix Factorization. A full roadmap of planned features have been made available on the official GitHub repo. The first stable 1.0 release of the framework was announced at Build (developer conference) 2019. It included the addition of a Model Builder tool and AutoML (Automated Machine Learning) capabilities. Build 1.3.1 introduced a preview of Deep Neural Network training using C# bindings for Tensorflow and a Database loader which enables model training on databases. The 1.4.0 preview added ML.NET scoring on ARM processors and Deep Neural Network training with GPU's for Windows and Linux. === Performance === Microsoft's paper on machine learning with ML.NET demonstrated it is capable of training sentiment analysis models using large datasets while achieving high accuracy. Its results showed 95% accuracy on Amazon's 9GB review dataset. === Model builder === The ML.NET CLI is a Command-line interface which uses ML.NET AutoML to perform model training and pick the best algorithm for the data. The ML.NET Model Builder preview is an extension for Visual Studio that uses ML.NET CLI and ML.NET AutoML to output the best ML.NET Model using a GUI. === Model explainability === AI fairness and explainability has been an area of debate for AI Ethicists in recent years. A major issue for Machine Learning applications is the black box effect where end users and the developers of an application are unsure of how an algorithm came to a decision or whether the dataset contains bias. Build 0.8 included model explainability API's that had been used internally in Microsoft. It added the capability to understand the feature importance of models with the addition of 'Overall Feature Importance' and 'Generalized Additive Models'. When there are several variables that contribute to the overall score, it is possible to see a breakdown of each variable and which features had the most impact on the final score. The official documentation demonstrates that the scoring metrics can be output for debugging purposes. During training & debugging of a model, developers can preview and inspect live filtered data. This is possible using the Visual Studio DataView tools. === Infer.NET === Microsoft Research announced the popular Infer.NET model-based machine learning framework used for research in academic institutions since 2008 has been released open source and is now part of the ML.NET framework. The Infer.NET framework utilises probabilistic programming to describe probabilistic models which has the added advantage of interpretability. The Infer.NET namespace has since been changed to Microsoft.ML.Probabilistic consistent with ML.NET namespaces. === NimbusML Python support === Microsoft acknowledged that the Python programming language is popular with Data Scientists, so it has introduced NimbusML the experimental Python bindings for ML.NET. This enables users to train and use machine learning models in Python. It was made open source similar to Infer.NET. === Machine learning in the browser === ML.NET allows users to export trained models to the Open Neural Network Exchange (ONNX) format. This establishes an opportunity to use models in different environments that don't use ML.NET. It would be possible to run these models in the client side of a browser using ONNX.js, a JavaScript client-side framework for deep learning models created in the Onnx format. === AI School Machine Learning Course === Along with the rollout of the ML.NET preview, Microsoft rolled out free AI tutorials and courses to help developers understand techniques needed to work with the framework.

  Read more →
• 

  Yale shooting problem

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

  Read more →
• 

  Content as a service

  Content as a service (CaaS) or managed content as a service (MCaaS) is a service-oriented model, where the service provider delivers the content on demand to the service consumer via web services that are licensed under subscription. The content is hosted by the service provider centrally in the cloud and offered to a number of consumers that need the content delivered into any applications or system, hence content can be demanded by the consumers as and when required. Content as a Service is a way to provide raw content (in other words, without the need for a specific human compatible representation, such as HTML) in a way that other systems can make use of it. Content as a Service is not meant for direct human consumption, but rather for other platforms to consume and make use of the content according to their particular needs. This happens usually on the cloud, with a centralized platform which can be globally accessible and provides a standard format for your content. With Content as a Service, you centralize your content into a single repository, where you can manage it, categorize it, make it available to others, search for it, or do whatever you wish with it. == Overview == The content delivered typically could be one or more of the following The technical terminology related to equipment or spares that is required to procure or design the materials The industrial terminology of the equipment or spares Technical values pertaining to various types, specifications, applications, characteristics of equipment or spares Sourcing information which will help in procurement or supply-chain management of equipment or spares Descriptive specifications of equipment or spares based on the product reference number or identifier UNSPSC codes or industry practiced classifications ISO, IEC compliant terminology Ontology or Technical Dictionary of products & services Predefined content for specific business needs The term "Content as a service" (CaaS) is considered to be part of the nomenclature of cloud computing service models & Service-oriented architecture along with Software as a service (SaaS), Infrastructure as a service (IaaS), and Platform as a service (PaaS).

  Read more →
• 

  Alec Radford

  Alec Radford is an American artificial intelligence researcher. == Biography == Radford grew up in Texas. He graduated from Cistercian Preparatory School in 2011, where he became an Eagle Scout, and dropped out of Olin College in August 2014, where he and fellow students Slater Victoroff, Diana Yuan, and Madison May had formed the startup Indico in their dorm room. In 2015, the quartet were joined by Luke Metz and the firm and the Facebook AI research lab in New York used generative adversarial networks to create realistic low pixel images. A demonstration of Indico's technology was used without proper attribution in an April 2016 demonstration by Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang. Radford joined OpenAI around 2016, where he worked on natural-language processing. The following year, Radford trained a neural network on Amazon reviews. The model was fairly basic, with layers which allowed for human understanding. Upon exploring it, he saw that it had a special neuron linked to the sentiment of the reviews, which it had created on its own. This was a drastic improvement from previous neural networks that had analysed sentiment, because they had to be told to do so and specially trained on data that was explicitly labeled according to sentiment. This development made OpenAI chief scientist Ilya Sutskever consider that a future model, using more diverse language data, could map far more structures of meaning, eventually becoming a "learned core module" for superintelligence. In 2018, Radford was the lead author on OpenAI's seminal research paper on generative pre-trained transformers, which form the foundation of ChatGPT. At OpenAI, he worked on early GPT models, Whisper, a speech recognition model, and the image generator DALL-E. He left OpenAI in December 2024 to pursue independent research. Around March 2025, Radford joined Thinking Machines Lab as an advisor. He joined along with Bob McGrew who was previously the chief research officer of OpenAI. In April 2026, Radford, Nick Levine, and David Duvenaud released Talkie, an AI model trained on books, newspapers, scientific journals, patents, and case law published before December 31, 1930. When asked about the state of the world in 2026, it stated that one billion people would live in Europe, that London and New York would be connected by steamships that transit between the two in ten days, and "winter will be passed in Paris, and the summer in London."

  Read more →
• 

  4E cognition

  4E cognition refers to a group of theories in (the philosophy of) cognitive science that challenge traditional views of the mind as something that happens only inside the brain. The four Es stand for: embodied, meaning that a brain is found in and, more importantly, vitally interconnected with a larger physical/biological body; embedded, which refers to the limitations placed on the body by the external environment and laws of nature; extended, which argues that the mind is supplemented and even enhanced by the exterior world (e.g., writing, a calculator, etc.); and enactive, which is the argument that without dynamic processes, actions that require reactions, the mind would be ineffectual. It could be argued that the four Es are compounding extensions of cognition or the mind, being part of a body that is, in turn, part of an environment which limits it but also allows for certain extensions, all of which require dynamic actions and reactions. == History == Ideas of embodied cognition, or rather the idea that our physical bodies play a crucial role in our decision making, can be traced back as far as Plato's dialogues and Aristotelian thought. It was, however, in the twentieth century that this debate began to resemble the current discussion, fueled by disagreements between cognitivists and behaviourists. Tensions within cognitivism, as well as the increasing popularity of neurobiology, led, on the one side, to a predominant focus on internal, cognitive processes while neglecting environmental factors, which in turn caused a push-back fuelling our modern understanding of embodied cognition. The term 4E cognition is hard to trace back to its first use, however, some sources attribute it to Shaun Gallagher and the conference on 4E cognition he organised in 2007, while others indicate the term to be first used in 2006 at an 'Embodied mind workshop' at Cardiff University that Gallagher attended. Embodiment or embodied cognition arguably presents the bridge between cognitivism and 4E cognition as the embodiment of cognitive function provides the necessary conditions for embeddedness, enactedness, and extendedness to connect to cognition. 4E cognition was and is heavily influenced by phenomenology. The ideas are still rather fragmented in nature due to their four main components, which can not be neatly divided, causing conceptual questions of internal boundary concepts. As a young field, it is held back both by its fragmented nature and a relative lack of critical evaluations. It is important to acknowledge that 4E cognition, though young, is a broad field containing and combining several different theoretical perspectives that conflict with one another to varying degrees. The somewhat convoluted and competing nature of the theories that can be grouped as 4E cognition, as well as the field's relative youth, make it difficult to put together an exhaustive history beyond the history of its four main theoretical pillars: embodiment, embeddedness, extendedness, and enactedness. == Importance and core tenets of 4E == If there are separate theories of cognition (e.g., embodied, extended, etc.), why group them under this umbrella, causing important epistemological and especially ontological dilemmas? Notably, other theories of 'non-traditional' cognition are not included under the 4E umbrella. The four E's in 4E cognition importantly all reject, or at a minimum draw into question, some of the core tenets of traditional cognitivism. Importantly, 4E cognition is seen as deindividualizing cognition to some extent, allowing for a broader examination of the interplay of personal, social, political, and ethical aspects that shape human cognition. This can be compared to advancements in the field of epigenetics, which have allowed for a broader examination of environmental (both natural and social) factors and their influence on what had previously only been subject to genetic theorizing. In a similar vein, 4E cognition might also help ground cognition in evolutionary theory by extending cognition to a biological account subject to development over time by means of evolution. Overall, the importance of the extension that is 4E cognition aims to reexamine ideas of a self-centered view of cognition, advocating for a more holistic approach. Ideally, this would allow us to reconsider ideas of justice and individual rights and responsibilities that take into account a more nuanced understanding of the relations between people and their context, balancing self-agency with factors beyond it. === Conceptual differences from cognitive psychology === According to the traditional teachings of cognitive psychology, cognition is a type of information processing based on representational mental structures. This idea, as the name suggests, was heavily influenced by computer science. In this light, the brain is a kind of central processing unit that organises and directs all else. The classical cognitivist view draws a strong boundary between 'the internal' and 'the external', where cognition is solely a subject of 'the internal' realm. The four E's, however, break down this boundary. Cognition can not reside solely within the confines of our heads if it is also embodied, embedded, enacted, and extended. In a way, 4E cognition is interested in the extracranial processes affecting cognition. == From embodied cognition to 4E cognition == === The strong and the weak view === ==== Embodied cognition ==== Broadly speaking, there is a strong and a weak perspective of embodied cognition in 4E cognition. The weak understanding refers to mental processes being causally dependent on extracranial processes. This essentially means that there is a cause and effect or action-reaction relationship between the mind and the body and its environment, etc. The strong perspective views extracranial processes as a (partial) constitutive aspect of cognition. An example here could be using a calculator to solve math problems. The calculator is not part of your brain or mind, but it supports your cognitive processes. === Extracranial processes: bodily or extrabodily === In addition to the weak and the strong reading of 4E cognition, there is also the distinction between bodily and extrabodily extracranial processes. Bodily extracranial processes refer to processes within the body, e.g., sensory perception. Extrabodily extracranial processes refer to processes outside of the body, like the aforementioned calculator example. === Four claims of embodied cognition === ==== Embedded and extended cognition ==== When combining the weak/strong reading of embodied cognition and bodily/extrabodily extracranial process, four claims about embodied cognition emerge: strongly embodied and bodily processes strongly embodied and extrabodily processes weakly embodied and bodily processes weakly embodied and extrabodily processes The first and third claims signify a strong and a weak reading of embodied cognition in the more classical sense. The second claim fits almost perfectly with embedded cognition. Claim two is most compatible with extended cognition. ==== Enacted cognition ==== Finally, enacted cognition refers to cognition being connected to active interaction between a conscious agent and their environment. Here, too, there can be a weak and a strong reading. == Criticisms == Given the divided nature of the field, much criticism surrounding the lack of unity within the field has emerged. In particular, the claims of embodied cognition centering around the body appear to conflict with the tenets of extended cognition, which also appear to conflict with the body/environment distinction that is central to enactivism. Some theoreticians argue that the umbrella of 4E theories is still lacking a common language that might bridge the gaps between the theories that constitute it. There is also the concern that the grouping of such variable theories results in an important loss of nuance and complexity, which is a part of human cognition. Another concern raised is the "dogma of harmony". The criticism contained there regards the notion that within 4E theorizing, there is generally an optimistic and harmonic expectation of the extension between humans and their technologies, ignoring the possibility of those extensions detracting from cognition in some way rather than adding to it. Recent attempts to incorporate embodied cognitive neuroscience have been argued to hold the potential to resolve internal issues within 4E cognition. Overall, a concern often voiced regarding 4E cognition is that its proponents are at best only vaguely interested in cognition. More broadly, this concern reflects the arguably too distracted nature of this emerging field.

  Read more →
• 

  KataGo

  KataGo is a free and open-source computer Go program, capable of defeating top-level human players. First released on 27 February 2019, it is developed by David Wu, who also developed the Arimaa playing program bot_Sharp which defeated three top human players to win the Arimaa AI Challenge in 2015. KataGo's first release was trained by David Wu using resources provided by his employer Jane Street Capital, but it is now trained by a distributed effort. Members of the computer Go community provide computing resources by running the client, which generates self-play games and rating games, and submits them to a server. The self-play games are used to train newer networks and the rating games to evaluate the networks' relative strengths. KataGo supports the Go Text Protocol, with various extensions, thus making it compatible with popular GUIs such as Lizzie. As an alternative, it also implements a custom "analysis engine" protocol, which is used by the KaTrain GUI, among others. KataGo is widely used by strong human go players, including the South Korean national team, for training purposes. KataGo is also used as the default analysis engine in the online Go website AI Sensei, as well as OGS (the Online Go Server). == Technology == Based on techniques used by DeepMind's AlphaGo Zero, KataGo implements Monte Carlo tree search with a convolutional neural network providing position evaluation and policy guidance. Compared to AlphaGo, KataGo introduces many refinements that enable it to learn faster and play more strongly. Notable features of KataGo that are absent in many other Go-playing programs include score estimation; support for small boards, rectangular boards, and large boards; arbitrary values of komi and handicaps; and the ability to use various Go rulesets and adjust its play and evaluation for the small differences between them. === Network === The network used in KataGo are ResNets with pre-activation. While AlphaGo Zero has only game board history as input features (as it was designed as a general architecture for board games, subsequently becoming AlphaZero), the input to the network contains additional features designed by hand specifically for playing Go. These features include liberties, komi parity, pass-alive, and ladders. The trunk is essentially the same as in AlphaGo Zero, but with global pooling layers added to allow the network to be conditioned on global context such as ko fights. This is similar to the Squeeze-and-Excitation Network. The network has two heads: a policy head and a value head. The policy and value heads are mostly the same as in AlphaGo Zero, but both heads have auxiliary subheads to provide auxiliary loss signal for faster training: Policy head: predicts policy for the current player's move this turn, and the opponent player's move in the next turn. A policy Each is a logit array of size 19 × 19 + 1 {\displaystyle 19\times 19+1} , representing the logit of making a move in one of the points, plus the logit of passing. Value head: predicts game outcome, expected score difference, expected board ownership, etc. The network is described in detail in Appendix A of the report. The code base switched from using TensorFlow to PyTorch in version 1.12. === Training === Let its trunk have b {\displaystyle b} residual blocks and c {\displaystyle c} channels. During its first training run, multiple networks were trained with increasing ( b , c ) {\displaystyle (b,c)} . It took 19 days using a maximum of 28 Nvidia V100 GPUs at 4.2 million games. After the first training run, training became a distributed project run by volunteers, with increasing network sizes. As of August 2024, it has reached b28c512 (28 blocks, 512 channels). == Adversarial attacks == In 2022, KataGo was used as the target for adversarial attack research, designed to demonstrate the "surprising failure modes" of AI systems. The researchers were able to trick KataGo into ending the game prematurely. Adversarial training improves defense against adversarial attacks, though not perfectly.

  Read more →
• 

  User-defined function

  A user-defined function (UDF) is a function provided by the user of a program or environment, in a context where the usual assumption is that functions are built into the program or environment. UDFs are usually written for the requirement of its creator. == BASIC language == In some old implementations of the BASIC programming language, user-defined functions are defined using the "DEF FN" syntax. More modern dialects of BASIC are influenced by the structured programming paradigm, where most or all of the code is written as user-defined functions or procedures, and the concept becomes practically redundant. == COBOL language == In the COBOL programming language, a user-defined function is an entity that is defined by the user by specifying a FUNCTION-ID paragraph. A user-defined function must return a value by specifying the RETURNING phrase of the procedure division header and they are invoked using the function-identifier syntax. See the ISO/IEC 1989:2014 Programming Language COBOL standard for details. As of May 2022, the IBM Enterprise COBOL for z/OS 6.4 (IBM COBOL) compiler contains support for user-defined functions. == Databases == In relational database management systems, a user-defined function provides a mechanism for extending the functionality of the database server by adding a function, that can be evaluated in standard query language (usually SQL) statements. The SQL standard distinguishes between scalar and table functions. A scalar function returns only a single value (or NULL), whereas a table function returns a (relational) table comprising zero or more rows, each row with one or more columns. User-defined functions in SQL are declared using the CREATE FUNCTION statement. For example, a user-defined function that converts Celsius to Fahrenheit (a temperature scale used in USA) might be declared like this: Once created, a user-defined function may be used in expressions in SQL statements. For example, it can be invoked where most other intrinsic functions are allowed. This also includes SELECT statements, where the function can be used against data stored in tables in the database. Conceptually, the function is evaluated once per row in such usage. For example, assume a table named Elements, with a row for each known chemical element. The table has a column named BoilingPoint for the boiling point of that element, in Celsius. The query would retrieve the name and the boiling point from each row. It invokes the CtoF user-defined function as declared above in order to convert the value in the column to a value in Fahrenheit. Each user-defined function carries certain properties or characteristics. The SQL standard defines the following properties: Language - defines the programming language in which the user-defined function is implemented; examples include SQL, C, C# and Java. Parameter style - defines the conventions that are used to pass the function parameters and results between the implementation of the function and the database system (only applicable if language is not SQL). Specific name - a name for the function that is unique within the database. Note that the function name does not have to be unique, considering overloaded functions. Some SQL implementations require that function names are unique within a database, and overloaded functions are not allowed. Determinism - specifies whether the function is deterministic or not. The determinism characteristic has an influence on the query optimizer when compiling a SQL statement. SQL-data access - tells the database management system whether the function contains no SQL statements (NO SQL), contains SQL statements but does not access any tables or views (CONTAINS SQL), reads data from tables or views (READS SQL DATA), or actually modifies data in the database (MODIFIES SQL DATA). User-defined functions should not be confused with stored procedures. Stored procedures allow the user to group a set of SQL commands. A procedure can accept parameters and execute its SQL statements depending on those parameters. A procedure is not an expression and, thus, cannot be used like user-defined functions. Some database management systems allow the creation of user defined functions in languages other than SQL. Microsoft SQL Server, for example, allows the user to use .NET languages including C# for this purpose. DB2 and Oracle support user-defined functions written in C or Java programming languages. === SQL Server 2000 === There are three types of UDF in Microsoft SQL Server 2000: scalar functions, inline table-valued functions, and multistatement table-valued functions. Scalar functions return a single data value (not a table) with RETURNS clause. Scalar functions can use all scalar data types, with exception of timestamp and user-defined data types. Inline table-valued functions return the result set of a single SELECT statement. Multistatement table-valued functions return a table, which was built with many TRANSACT-SQL statements. User-defined functions can be invoked from a query like built‑in functions such as OBJECT_ID, LEN, DATEDIFF, or can be executed through an EXECUTE statement like stored procedures. Performance Notes: User-defined functions are subroutines made of one or more Transact-SQL statements that can be used to encapsulate code for reuse. It takes zero or more arguments and evaluates a return value. Has both control-flow and DML statements in its body similar to stored procedures. Does not allow changes to any Global Session State, like modifications to database or external resource, such as a file or network. Does not support output parameter. DEFAULT keyword must be specified to pass the default value of parameter. Errors in UDF cause UDF to abort which, in turn, aborts the statement that invoked the UDF. === Apache Hive === Apache Hive defines, in addition to the regular user-defined functions (UDF), also user-defined aggregate functions (UDAF) and table-generating functions (UDTF). Hive enables developers to create their own custom functions with Java. === Apache Doris === Apache Doris, an open-source real-time analytical database, allows external users to contribute their own UDFs written in C++ to it.

  Read more →
• 

  Group concept mapping

  Group concept mapping is a structured methodology for organizing the ideas of a group on any topic of interest and representing those ideas visually in a series of interrelated maps. It is a type of integrative mixed method, combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis. Group concept mapping allows for a collaborative group process with groups of any size, including a broad and diverse array of participants. Since its development in the late 1980s by William M.K. Trochim at Cornell University, it has been applied to various fields and contexts, including community and public health, social work, health care, human services,, instructional interventions, and biomedical research and evaluation. == Overview == Group concept mapping integrates qualitative group processes with multivariate analysis to help a group organize and visually represent its ideas on any topic of interest through a series of related maps. It combines the ideas of diverse participants to show what the group thinks and values in relation to the specific topic of interest. It is a type of structured conceptualization used by groups to develop a conceptual framework, often to help guide evaluation and planning efforts. Group concept mapping is participatory in nature, allowing participants to have an equal voice and to contribute through various methods. A group concept map visually represents all the ideas of a group and how they relate to each other, and depending on the scale, which ideas are more relevant, important, or feasible. == Process == Group concept mapping involves a structured multi-step process, including brainstorming, sorting and rating, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, and the generation and interpretation of multiple maps. The first step requires participants to brainstorm a large set of statements relevant to the topic of interest, usually in response to a focus prompt. Participants are then asked to individually sort those statements into categories based on their perceived similarity and rate each statement on one or more scales, such as importance or feasibility. The data is then analyzed using The Concept System software, which creates a series of interrelated maps using multidimensional scaling (MDS) of the sort data, hierarchical clustering of the MDS coordinates applying Ward's method, and the computation of average ratings for each statement and cluster of statements. The resulting maps display the individual statements in two-dimensional space with more similar statements located closer to each other, and grouped into clusters that partition the space on the map. The Concept System software also creates other maps that show the statements in each cluster rated on one or more scales, and absolute or relative cluster ratings between two cluster sets. As a last step in the process, participants are led through a structured interpretation session to better understand and label all the maps. == History == Group concept mapping was developed as a methodology in the late 1980s by William M.K. Trochim at Cornell University. Trochim is considered to be a leading evaluation expert, and he has taught evaluation and research methods at Cornell since 1980. Originally called "concept mapping", the methodology has evolved since its inception with the maturation of the field and the continued advancement of the software, which is now a Web application. == Uses == Group concept mapping can be used with any group for any topic of interest. It is often used by government agencies, academic institutions, national associations, not-for-profit and community-based organizations, and private businesses to help turn the ideas of the group into measurable actions. This includes in the areas of organizational development, strategic planning, needs assessment, curriculum development, research, and evaluation. Group concept mapping is well-documented, well-established methodology, and it has been used in hundreds of published papers. == Versus concept mapping and mind mapping == More generally, concept mapping is any process used for visually representing relationships between ideas in pictures or diagrams. A concept map is typically a diagram of multiple ideas, often represented as boxes or circles, linked in a graph (network) structure through arrows and words where each idea is connected to another. The technique was originally developed in the 1970s by Joseph D. Novak at Cornell University. Concept mapping may be done by an individual or a group. A mind map is a diagram used to visually represent information, centering on one word or idea with categories and sub-categories radiating off of it in a tree structure. Popularized by Tony Buzan in the 1970s, mind mapping is often a spontaneous exercise done by an individual or group to gather information about what they think around a single topic. Unlike Novak's concept maps and Buzan's mind maps, group concept mapping has a structured mathematical process (sorting and rating, multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis) for organizing and visually representing multiple ideas of a group through a series of specific steps. In other words, in group concept mapping, the resulting visual representations are mathematically generated from mixed (qualitative and quantitative) data collected from a group of research subjects, whereas in Novak's concept maps and Buzan's mind maps the visual representations are drawn directly by the subjects resulting in diagrams that are qualitative data and final product at the same time.

  Read more →
• 

  Google Nest

  Google Nest, formerly branded Google Home, is a line of smart home products including smart speakers, smart displays, streaming devices, thermostats, smoke detectors, routers and security systems including smart doorbells, cameras and smart locks. The Nest brand name was originally owned by Nest Labs, co-founded by former Apple engineers Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers in 2010. Its flagship product, which was the company's first offering, is the Nest Learning Thermostat, introduced in 2011. The product is programmable, self-learning, sensor-driven, and Wi-Fi-enabled: features that are often found in other Nest products. It was followed by the Nest Protect smoke and carbon monoxide detectors in October 2013. After its acquisition of Dropcam in 2014, the company introduced its Nest Cam branding of security cameras beginning in June 2015. The company quickly expanded to more than 130 employees by the end of 2012. Google acquired Nest Labs for US$3.2 billion in January 2014, when the company employed 280. As of late 2015, Nest employs more than 1,100 and added a primary engineering center in Seattle. After Google reorganized itself under the holding company Alphabet Inc., Nest operated independently of Google from 2015 to 2018. However, in 2018, Nest was merged into Google's home-devices unit led by Rishi Chandra, effectively ceasing to exist as a separate business. In July 2018, it was announced that all Google Home electronics products will henceforth be marketed under the brand Google Nest. == History == === Nest Labs before acquisition by Google === Nest Labs was founded in 2010 by former Apple engineers Tony Fadell and Matt Rogers. The idea came when Fadell was building a vacation home and found all of the available thermostats on the market to be inadequate, motivated to bring something better on the market. Early investors in Nest Labs included Shasta Ventures and Kleiner Perkins. === Acquisition by Google of Nest Labs, Dropcam, and Revolv === On January 13, 2014, Google announced plans to acquire Nest Labs for $3.2 billion in cash. Google completed the acquisition the next day, on January 14, 2014. The company would operate independently from Google's other businesses. In June 2014, it was announced that Nest would buy camera startup Dropcam for $555 million. With the purchase, Dropcam became integrated with other Nest products; if the Protect alarm is triggered, the Dropcam can automatically start recording, and the Thermostat can use Dropcam to sense for motion. In September 2014, the Nest Thermostat and Nest Protect (a smoke alarm) became available in Belgium, France, Ireland, and the Netherlands. Initially, they were sold in approximately 400 stores across Europe, with another 150 stores to be added by the end of the year. In June 2015, the new Nest Cam, replacing the Dropcam, was announced, together with the second generation of the Nest Protect; there were internal reports that sales of the rebranded camera fell. On October 24, 2014, Nest both acquired the hub service Revolv, and discontinued its product line, gaining the expertise of Revolv's staff. === Nest as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. === In August 2015, Google announced that it would restructure its operations under a new parent company, Alphabet Inc., with Nest being separated from Google as a subsidiary of the new holding company. In January 2016, some Nest thermostats stopped working, a fault attributed to a software update from two weeks earlier. There were no lawsuits, individual or class-action, due to an arbitration clause in the contract. All Revolv smart hubs, costing several hundred dollars, were deliberately remotely bricked on May 15, 2016; notice was posted on the company's website in February. The story became news on April 4. The "lifetime subscription" to Revolv's online service, which had been sold with the hub, was defined by Nest to be the lifetime of the device, which ended May 15. Nest's decision to brick the hubs, and its "acerbic" corporate culture, faced substantial criticism from within Google/Alphabet and in press coverage. Many of Nest's staffers came from Dropcam and Revolv, and by November 2015, about 70 of about 1000 staffers had quit, causing management concern. Some countermeasures had been taken in takeover deals, to financially discourage senior people from leaving before set dates. Of the ~100 Dropcam staffers, about half had left by March 2016, when former Dropcam CEO Greg Duffy (who left 8 months after the takeover) wrote a post openly regretting selling his company to Nest. He stated that about 500 people had left (of a 1200-person staff). On June 6, 2016, Tony Fadell, the Nest CEO, announced in a blog post that he was leaving the company he founded with Matt Rogers and stepping into an "advisory" role. At this point the Nest acquisition was described by some press as a "disaster" for Google. As of mid-June 2016, Nest's problems were considered symptomatic of the limited market for home automation. According to Frank Gillet of Forrester Research, only 6% of American households possessed internet-connected devices such as appliances, home-monitoring systems, speakers, or lighting. He also predicted this percentage would grow to only 15% by 2021. Furthermore, 72% of respondents in a 2016 British survey conducted by Pricewaterhouse Coopers did not foresee adopting smart-home technology over the next two to five years. === Nest as a part of Google hardware division === On February 7, 2018, it was announced by hardware head Rick Osterloh that Nest had been merged into Google's hardware division, directly alongside units such as Google Home and Chromecast. It would retain its separate Palo Alto headquarters, but Nest CEO Marwan Fawaz would now report to Osterloh, and there were plans for tighter integration with Google platforms and software such as Google Assistant in future products. Shortly after the announcement, co-founder and chief product officer Matt Rogers announced his plans to leave the company. On July 18, 2018, Nest CEO Marwan Fawaz stepped down. Nest was merged with Google's home devices team, led by Rishi Chandra. During the Google I/O keynote on May 7, 2019, it was announced that Google Nest will now serve as the blanket branding for all of Google's home products. The Google Home Hub was retroactively renamed Google Nest Hub, while a new and larger version of the product is now available called the Nest Hub Max with both a larger screen and an amplified speaker, for a greater low-end audio experience. Also, product lines such as Chromecast, Google Home, and Google Wifi will now be marketed under the Google Nest brand. In addition, Nest began to deprecate its own internal platforms, announcing the discontinuation of the existing "Works with Nest" program in favor of Google Assistant going forward, and pushing users to migrate themselves from Nest's account system to Google accounts. Google published Nest-specific privacy information outlining a commitment to transparency, not selling personal information, and giving users control of their data. In February 2019, a privacy incident affecting the Google Nest Guard system came about. The controversy stemmed from the fact that Nest Guard, a security device that was part of the Nest Secure system, contained a hidden microphone that was not disclosed in any product specifications. It resulted in a public relations failure. === Partnership with ADT === In August 2020 Google announced intent to invest $450 million in ADT Inc. for a 6.6% stake in the company. The companies intend to integrate Nest devices with ADT's security monitoring services and eventually make them the “cornerstone of ADT’s smart home offering”, according to Nest. Upon the announcement, the shares of ADT doubled in value and hit all-time high of $17.21. === Use with Amazon Alexa === As of mid-2022, Google's newer Nest cameras will now work with Amazon Alexa devices such as Amazon Echo Show, Fire TV, and Fire Tablet to view captured security camera footage. === End of support policies === On October 25, 2025, software support was ended for the 1st and 2nd generation Nest Learning Thermostats. In addition, most of the smart functionality including the Home Away features, notifications, and carbon monoxide sensor became inoperative as they were dependent on connection with Google servers. By mid-November, third-party software solutions became available to restore functionality to affected thermostats. == Products == === Nest Learning Thermostat === The Nest Learning Thermostat is an electronic, programmable, and self-learning Wi-Fi-enabled thermostat that optimizes heating and cooling of homes and businesses to conserve energy. It is based on a machine-learning algorithm: for the first weeks users have to regulate the thermostat in order to provide the reference data set. Nest can then learn people's schedules, at which temperature they are used to and when. Using built-in sensors and phones' locations it can

  Read more →
• 

  REEM

  REEM is a prototype humanoid robot built by PAL Robotics in Spain. It is a 1.70 m high humanoid robot with 22 degrees of freedom, with a mobile base with wheels, allowing it to move at 4 km/hour. The upper part of the robot consists of a torso with a touch screen, two motorized arms, which give it a high degree of expression, and a head, which is also motorized. REEM-A and REEM-B are the first and second prototypes of humanoid robots created by PAL Robotics. REEM-B can recognize, grasp and lift objects and walk by itself, avoiding obstacles through simultaneous localization and mapping. The robot accepts voice commands and can recognize faces. == Specifications ==

  Read more →
• 

  ISPConfig

  ISPConfig is an open source hosting control panel for Linux, licensed under BSD license and developed by the company ISPConfig UG. The ISPConfig project was started in autumn 2005 by Till Brehm from the German company projektfarm GmbH. == Overview == Using the dashboard, administrators have the ability to manage websites, email addresses, MySQL and MariaDB as well as PostgreSQL (since version 3.3) databases, FTP accounts, Shell accounts and DNS records through a web-based interface. The software has 4 login levels: administrator, reseller, client, and email-user, each with a different set of permissions. == Operating Systems == ISPConfig is only available on Linux, with CentOS, Debian, and Ubuntu being among the supported distributions. == Features == The following services and features are supported: Management of a single or multiple servers from one control panel. Web server management for Apache HTTP Server and Nginx. Mail server management (with virtual mail users) with spam and antivirus filter using Postfix (software) and Dovecot (software). DNS server management (BIND, Powerdns). Configuration mirroring and clusters. Administrator, reseller, client and mail-user login. Virtual server management for OpenVZ Servers. Website statistics using Webalizer and AWStats

  Read more →
• 

  Lisp machine

  Lisp machines are general-purpose computers designed to efficiently run Lisp as their main software and programming language, usually via hardware support. They are an example of a high-level language computer architecture. In a sense, they were the first commercial single-user workstations. Despite being modest in number (perhaps 7,000 units total as of 1988) Lisp machines commercially pioneered some now-commonplace technologies, including networking innovations such as Chaosnet, and effective garbage collection. Several firms built and sold Lisp machines in the 1980s: Symbolics (3600, 3640, XL1200, MacIvory, and other models), Lisp Machines Incorporated (LMI Lambda), Texas Instruments (Explorer, MicroExplorer), and Xerox (Interlisp-D workstations). The operating systems were written in Lisp Machine Lisp, Interlisp (Xerox), and later partly in Common Lisp. == History == === Historical context === Artificial intelligence (AI) computer programs of the 1960s and 1970s intrinsically required what was then considered a huge amount of computer power, as measured in processor time and memory space. The power requirements of AI research were exacerbated by the Lisp symbolic programming language, when commercial hardware was designed and optimized for assembly- and Fortran-like programming languages. At first, the cost of such computer hardware meant that it had to be shared among many users. As integrated circuit technology shrank the size and cost of computers in the 1960s and early 1970s, and the memory needs of AI programs began to exceed the address space of the most common research computer, the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) PDP-10, researchers considered a new approach: a computer designed specifically to develop and run large artificial intelligence programs, and tailored to the semantics of the Lisp language. To provide consistent performance for interactive programs, these machines would often not be shared, but would be dedicated to a single user at a time. === Initial development === In 1973, Richard Greenblatt and Thomas Knight, programmers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (AI Lab), began what would become the MIT Lisp Machine Project when they first began building a computer hardwired to run certain basic Lisp operations, rather than run them in software, in a 24-bit tagged architecture. The machine also did incremental (or Arena) garbage collection. More specifically, since Lisp variables are typed at runtime rather than compile time, a simple addition of two variables could take five times as long on conventional hardware, due to test and branch instructions. Lisp Machines ran the tests in parallel with the more conventional single instruction additions. If the simultaneous tests failed, then the result was discarded and recomputed; this meant in many cases a speed increase by several factors. This simultaneous checking approach was used as well in testing the bounds of arrays when referenced, and other memory management necessities (not merely garbage collection or arrays). Type checking was further improved and automated when the conventional byte word of 32 bits was lengthened to 36 bits for Symbolics 3600-model Lisp machines and eventually to 40 bits or more (usually, the excess bits not accounted for by the following were used for error-correcting codes). The first group of extra bits were used to hold type data, making the machine a tagged architecture, and the remaining bits were used to implement compressed data representation (CDR) coding (wherein the usual linked list elements are compressed to occupy roughly half the space), aiding garbage collection by reportedly an order of magnitude. A further improvement was two microcode instructions which specifically supported Lisp functions, reducing the cost of calling a function to as little as 20 clock cycles, in some Symbolics implementations. The first machine was called the CONS machine (named after the list construction operator cons in Lisp). Often it was affectionately referred to as the Knight machine, perhaps since Knight wrote his master's thesis on the subject; it was extremely well received. It was subsequently improved into a version called CADR (a pun; in Lisp, the cadr function, which returns the second item of a list, is pronounced /ˈkeɪ.dəɹ/ or /ˈkɑ.dəɹ/, as some pronounce the word "cadre") which was based on essentially the same architecture. About 25 of what were essentially prototype CADRs were sold within and without MIT for ~$50,000; it quickly became the favorite machine for hacking – many of the most favored software tools were quickly ported to it (e.g. Emacs was ported from ITS in 1975). It was so well received at an AI conference held at MIT in 1978 that Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began funding its development. === Commercializing MIT Lisp machine technology === In 1979, Russell Noftsker, being convinced that Lisp machines had a bright commercial future due to the strength of the Lisp language and the enabling factor of hardware acceleration, proposed to Greenblatt that they commercialize the technology. In a counter-intuitive move for an AI Lab hacker, Greenblatt acquiesced, hoping perhaps that he could recreate the informal and productive atmosphere of the Lab in a real business. These ideas and goals were considerably different from those of Noftsker. The two negotiated at length, but neither would compromise. As the proposed firm could succeed only with the full and undivided assistance of the AI Lab hackers as a group, Noftsker and Greenblatt decided that the fate of the enterprise was up to them, and so the choice should be left to the hackers. The ensuing discussions of the choice divided the lab into two factions. In February 1979, matters came to a head. The hackers sided with Noftsker, believing that a commercial venture-fund-backed firm had a better chance of surviving and commercializing Lisp machines than Greenblatt's proposed self-sustaining start-up. Greenblatt lost the battle. It was at this juncture that Symbolics, Noftsker's enterprise, slowly came together. While Noftsker was paying his staff a salary, he had no building or any equipment for the hackers to work on. He bargained with Patrick Winston that, in exchange for allowing Symbolics' staff to keep working out of MIT, Symbolics would let MIT use internally and freely all the software Symbolics developed. A consultant from CDC, who was trying to put together a natural language computer application with a group of West-coast programmers, came to Greenblatt, seeking a Lisp machine for his group to work with, about eight months after the disastrous conference with Noftsker. Greenblatt had decided to start his own rival Lisp machine firm, but he had done nothing. The consultant, Alexander Jacobson, decided that the only way Greenblatt was going to start the firm and build the Lisp machines that Jacobson desperately needed was if Jacobson pushed and otherwise helped Greenblatt launch the firm. Jacobson pulled together business plans, a board, a partner for Greenblatt (one F. Stephen Wyle). The newfound firm was named LISP Machine, Inc. (LMI), and was funded by CDC orders, via Jacobson. Around this time Symbolics (Noftsker's firm) began operating. It had been hindered by Noftsker's promise to give Greenblatt a year's head start, and by severe delays in procuring venture capital. Symbolics still had the major advantage that while 3 or 4 of the AI Lab hackers had gone to work for Greenblatt, 14 other hackers had signed onto Symbolics. Two AI Lab people were not hired by either: Richard Stallman and Marvin Minsky. Stallman, however, blamed Symbolics for the decline of the hacker community that had centered around the AI lab. For two years, from 1982 to the end of 1983, Stallman worked by himself to clone the output of the Symbolics programmers, with the aim of preventing them from gaining a monopoly on the lab's computers. Regardless, after a series of internal battles, Symbolics did get off the ground in 1980/1981, selling the CADR as the LM-2, while Lisp Machines, Inc. sold it as the LMI-CADR. Symbolics did not intend to produce many LM-2s, since the 3600 family of Lisp machines was supposed to ship quickly, but the 3600s were repeatedly delayed, and Symbolics ended up producing ~100 LM-2s, each of which sold for $70,000. Both firms developed second-generation products based on the CADR: the Symbolics 3600 and the LMI-LAMBDA (of which LMI managed to sell ~200). The 3600, which shipped a year late, expanded on the CADR by widening the machine word to 36-bits, expanding the address space to 28-bits, and adding hardware to accelerate certain common functions that were implemented in microcode on the CADR. The LMI-LAMBDA, which came out a year after the 3600, in 1983, was compatible with the CADR (it could run CADR microcode), but hardware differences existed. Texas Instruments (TI) joined the fray whe

  Read more →
• 

  WYSIWYM (interaction technique)

  What you see is what you meant (WYSIWYM) is a text editing interaction technique that emerged from two projects at University of Brighton. It allows users to create abstract knowledge representations such as those required by the Semantic Web using a natural language interface. Natural language understanding (NLU) technology is not employed. Instead, natural language generation (NLG) is used in a highly interactive manner. The text editor accepts repeated refinement of a selected span of text as it becomes progressively less vacuous of authored semantics. Using a mouse, a text property held in the evolving text can be further refined by a set of options derived by NLG from a built-in ontology. An invisible representation of the semantic knowledge is created which can be used for multilingual document generation, formal knowledge formation, or any other task that requires formally specified information. The two projects at Brighton worked in the field of Conceptual Authoring to lay a foundation for further research and development of a Semantic Web Authoring Tool (SWAT). This tool has been further explored as a means for developing a knowledge base by those without prior experience with Controlled Natural Language tools.

  Read more →