AI Data Defense

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

• 

  Schema-agnostic databases

  Schema-agnostic databases or vocabulary-independent databases aim at supporting users to be abstracted from the representation of the data, supporting the automatic semantic matching between queries and databases. Schema-agnosticism is the property of a database of mapping a query issued with the user terminology and structure, automatically mapping it to the dataset vocabulary. The increase in the size and in the semantic heterogeneity of database schemas bring new requirements for users querying and searching structured data. At this scale it can become unfeasible for data consumers to be familiar with the representation of the data in order to query it. At the center of this discussion is the semantic gap between users and databases, which becomes more central as the scale and complexity of the data grows. == Description == The evolution of data environments towards the consumption of data from multiple data sources and the growth in the schema size, complexity, dynamicity and decentralisation (SCoDD) of schemas increases the complexity of contemporary data management. The SCoDD trend emerges as a central data management concern in Big Data scenarios, where users and applications have a demand for more complete data, produced by independent data sources, under different semantic assumptions and contexts of use, which is the typical scenario for Semantic Web Data applications. The evolution of databases in the direction of heterogeneous data environments strongly impacts the usability, semiotics and semantic assumptions behind existing data accessibility methods such as structured queries, keyword-based search and visual query systems. With schema-less databases containing potentially millions of dynamically changing attributes, it becomes unfeasible for some users to become aware of the 'schema' or vocabulary in order to query the database. At this scale, the effort in understanding the schema in order to build a structured query can become prohibitive. == Schema-agnostic queries == Schema-agnostic queries can be defined as query approaches over structured databases which allow users satisfying complex information needs without the understanding of the representation (schema) of the database. Similarly, Tran et al. defines it as "search approaches, which do not require users to know the schema underlying the data". Approaches such as keyword-based search over databases allow users to query databases without employing structured queries. However, as discussed by Tran et al.: "From these points, users however have to do further navigation and exploration to address complex information needs. Unlike keyword search used on the Web, which focuses on simple needs, the keyword search elaborated here is used to obtain more complex results. Instead of a single set of resources, the goal is to compute complex sets of resources and their relations." The development of approaches to support natural language interfaces (NLI) over databases have aimed towards the goal of schema-agnostic queries. Complementarily, some approaches based on keyword search have targeted keyword-based queries which express more complex information needs. Other approaches have explored the construction of structured queries over databases where schema constraints can be relaxed. All these approaches (natural language, keyword-based search and structured queries) have targeted different degrees of sophistication in addressing the problem of supporting a flexible semantic matching between queries and data, which vary from the completely absence of the semantic concern to more principled semantic models. While the demand for schema-agnosticism has been an implicit requirement across semantic search and natural language query systems over structured data, it is not sufficiently individuated as a concept and as a necessary requirement for contemporary database management systems. Recent works have started to define and model the semantic aspects involved on schema-agnostic queries. === Schema-agnostic structured queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries following the syntax of a structured standard (for example SQL, SPARQL). The syntax and semantics of operators are maintained, while different terminologies are used. ==== Example 1 ==== SELECT ?y { BillClinton hasDaughter ?x . ?x marriedTo ?y . } which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: ==== Example 2 ==== which maps to the following SPARQL query in the dataset vocabulary: === Schema-agnostic keyword queries === Consist of schema-agnostic queries using keyword queries. In this case the syntax and semantics of operators are different from the structured query syntax. ==== Example ==== "Bill Clinton daughter married to" "Books by William Goldman with more than 300 pages" == Semantic complexity == As of 2016 the concept of schema-agnostic queries has been developed primarily in academia. Most of schema-agnostic query systems have been investigated in the context of Natural Language Interfaces over databases or over the Semantic Web. These works explore the application of semantic parsing techniques over large, heterogeneous and schema-less databases. More recently, the individuation of the concept of schema-agnostic query systems and databases have appeared more explicitly within the literature. Freitas et al. provide a probabilistic model on the semantic complexity of mapping schema-agnostic queries.

  Read more →
• 

  CLAWS (linguistics)

  The Constituent Likelihood Automatic Word-tagging System (CLAWS) is a program that performs part-of-speech tagging. It was developed in the 1980s at Lancaster University by the University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. It has an overall accuracy rate of 96–97% with the latest version (CLAWS4) tagging around 100 million words of the British National Corpus. == History == A Part-Of-Speech Tagger (POS Tagger) is a piece of software that reads text in some language and assigns parts of speech to each word (and other token), such as noun, verb, adjective, etc., although generally computational applications use more fine-grained POS tags like 'noun-plural'. Developed in the early 1980s, CLAWS was built to fill the ever-growing gap created by always-changing POS necessities. Originally created to add part-of-speech tags to the LOB corpus of British English, the CLAWS tagset has since been adapted to other languages as well, including Urdu and Arabic. Since its inception, CLAWS has been hailed for its functionality and adaptability. Still, it is not without flaws, and though it boasts an error-rate of only 1.5% when judged in major categories, CLAWS still remains with c.3.3% ambiguities unresolved. Ambiguity arises in cases such as with the word flies, and whether it should be classified as a noun or a verb. It's these ambiguities that will require the various upgrades and tagsets that CLAWS will endure. == Rules and processing == CLAWS uses a Hidden Markov model to determine the likelihood of sequences of words in anticipating each part-of-speech label. === Sample output === This excerpt from Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897) has been tagged using both the CLAWS C5 and C7 tagsets. This is what a CLAWS output will generally look like, with the most likely part-of-speech tag following each word. == Tagsets == === CLAWS1 tagset === The first tagset developed in CLAWS, CLAWS1 tagset, has 132 word tags. In terms of form and application, C1 tagset is similar to Brown Corpus tags. See Table of tags in C1 tagset here. === CLAWS2 tagset === From 1983 to 1986, updated versions leading to CLAWS2 were part of a larger attempt to deal with aspects such as recognizing sentence breaks, in order to avoid the need for manual pre-processing of a text before the tags were applied, moving instead to optional manual post-editing to adjust the output of the automatic annotation, if needed. The CLAWS2 tagset has 166 word tags. See Table of tags in C2 tagset here. === CLAWS4 tagset === The CLAWS4 was used for the 100-million-word British National Corpus (BNC). A general-purpose grammatical tagger, it is a successor of the CLAWS1 tagger. In tagging the BNC, the many rounds of work that went into CLAWS4 focused on making the CLAWS program independent from the tagsets. For example, the BNC project used two tagset versions: "a main tagset (C5) with 62 tags with which the whole of the corpus has been tagged, and a larger (C7) tagset with 152 tags, which has been used to make a selected 'core' sample corpus of two million words." The latest version of CLAWS4 is offered by UCREL, a research center of Lancaster University. === CLAWS5 tagset === The CLAWS5 tagset, which was used for BNC, has over 60 tags. See Table of tags in C5 tagset here. === CLAWS6 tagset === The CLAWS6 tagset was used for the BNC sampler corpus and the COLT corpus. It has over 160 tags, including 13 determiner subtypes. See Table of tags in C6 tagset here. === CLAWS7 tagset === The standard CLAWS7 tagset is used currently. It is only different in the punctuation tags when compared to the CLAWS6 tagset. See Table of tags in C7 tagset here. === CLAWS8 tagset === CLAWS8 tagset was extended from C7 tagset with further distinctions in the determiner and pronoun categories, as well as 37 new auxiliary tags for forms of be, do, and have. See Table of tags in C8 tagset here

  Read more →
• 

  Language Computer Corporation

  Language Computer Corporation (LCC) is a natural language processing research company based in Richardson, Texas. The company develops a variety of natural language processing products, including software for question answering, information extraction, and automatic summarization. Since its founding in 1995, the low-profile company has landed significant United States Government contracts, with $8,353,476 in contracts in 2006-2008. While the company has focused primarily on the government software market, LCC has also used its technology to spin off three start-up companies. The first spin-off, known as Lymba Corporation, markets the PowerAnswer question answering product originally developed at LCC. In 2010, LCC's CEO, Andrew Hickl, co-founded two start-ups which made use of the company's technology. These included Swingly, an automatic question answering start-up, and Extractiv, an information extraction service that was founded in partnership with Houston, Texas-based 80legs.

  Read more →
• 

  Language model benchmark

  A language model benchmark is a standardized test designed to evaluate the performance of language models on various natural language processing tasks. These tests are intended for comparing different models' capabilities in areas such as language understanding, generation, and reasoning. Benchmarks generally consist of a dataset and corresponding evaluation metrics. The dataset provides text samples and annotations, while the metrics measure a model's performance on tasks like answering questions, text classification, and machine translation. These benchmarks are developed and maintained by academic institutions, research organizations, and industry players to track progress in the field. In addition to accuracy, the metrics can include throughput, energy efficiency, bias, trust, and sustainability. == Overview == === Types === Benchmarks may be described by the following adjectives, not mutually exclusive: Classical: These tasks are studied in natural language processing, even before the advent of deep learning. Examples include the Penn Treebank for testing syntactic and semantic parsing, as well as bilingual translation benchmarked by BLEU scores. Question answering: These tasks have a text question and a text answer, often multiple-choice. They can be open-book or closed-book. Open-book QA resembles reading comprehension questions, with relevant passages included as annotation in the question, in which the answer appears. Closed-book QA includes no relevant passages. Closed-book QA is also called open-domain question-answering. Before the era of large language models, open-book QA was more common, and understood as testing information retrieval methods. Closed-book QA became common since GPT-2 as a method to measure knowledge stored within model parameters. Omnibus: An omnibus benchmark combines many benchmarks, often previously published. It is intended as an all-in-one benchmarking solution. Reasoning: These tasks are usually in the question-answering format, but are intended to be more difficult than standard question answering. Multimodal: These tasks require processing not only text, but also other modalities, such as images and sound. Examples include OCR and transcription. Agency: These tasks are for a language-model–based software agent that operates a computer for a user, such as editing images, browsing the web, etc. Adversarial: A benchmark is "adversarial" if the items in the benchmark are picked specifically so that certain models do badly on them. Adversarial benchmarks are often constructed after state of the art (SOTA) models have saturated (achieved 100% performance) a benchmark, to renew the benchmark. A benchmark is "adversarial" only at a certain moment in time, since what is adversarial may cease to be adversarial as newer SOTA models appear. Public/Private: A benchmark might be partly or entirely private, meaning that some or all of the questions are not publicly available. The idea is that if a question is publicly available, then it might be used for training, which would be "training on the test set" and invalidate the result of the benchmark. Usually, only the guardians of the benchmark have access to the private subsets, and to score a model on such a benchmark, one must send the model weights, or provide API access, to the guardians. The boundary between a benchmark and a dataset is not sharp. Generally, a dataset contains three "splits": training, test, and validation. Both the test and validation splits are essentially benchmarks. In general, a benchmark is distinguished from a test/validation dataset in that a benchmark is typically intended to be used to measure the performance of many different models that are not trained specifically for doing well on the benchmark, while a test/validation set is intended to be used to measure the performance of models trained specifically on the corresponding training set. In other words, a benchmark may be thought of as a test/validation set without a corresponding training set. Conversely, certain benchmarks may be used as a training set, such as the English Gigaword or the One Billion Word Benchmark, which in modern language is just the negative log-likelihood loss on a pretraining set with 1 billion words. Indeed, the distinction between benchmark and dataset in language models became sharper after the rise of the pretraining paradigm, whereby a model is first trained on massive, unlabeled datasets to learn general language patterns, syntax, and knowledge (pretraining), and the base model is then adapted to specific, downstream tasks using smaller, labeled datasets (fine-tuning). === Lifecycle === Generally, the life cycle of a benchmark consists of the following steps: Inception: A benchmark is published. It can be simply given as a demonstration of the power of a new model (implicitly) that others then picked up as a benchmark, or as a benchmark that others are encouraged to use (explicitly). Growth: More papers and models use the benchmark, and the performance on the benchmark grows. Maturity, degeneration or deprecation: A benchmark may be saturated, after which researchers move on to other benchmarks. Progress on the benchmark may also be neglected as the field moves to focus on other benchmarks. Renewal: A saturated benchmark can be upgraded to make it no longer saturated, allowing further progress. === Construction === Like datasets, benchmarks are typically constructed by several methods, individually or in combination: Web scraping: Ready-made question-answer pairs may be scraped online, such as from websites that teach mathematics and programming. Conversion: Items may be constructed programmatically from scraped web content, such as by blanking out named entities from sentences, and asking the model to fill in the blank. This was used for making the CNN/Daily Mail Reading Comprehension Task. Crowd sourcing: Items may be constructed by paying people to write them, such as on Amazon Mechanical Turk. This was used for making the MCTest. === Evaluation === Generally, benchmarks are fully automated. This limits the questions that can be asked. For example, with mathematical questions, "proving a claim" would be difficult to automatically check, while "calculate an answer with a unique integer answer" would be automatically checkable. With programming tasks, the answer can generally be checked by running unit tests, with an upper limit on runtime. The benchmark scores are of the following kinds: For multiple choice or cloze questions, common scores are accuracy (frequency of correct answer), precision, recall, F1 score, etc. pass@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If any attempt is correct, the model earns a point. The pass@n score is the model's average score over all problems. k@n: The model makes n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem, but only k {\displaystyle k} attempts out of them are selected for submission. If any submission is correct, the model earns a point. The k@n score is the model's average score over all problems. cons@n: The model is given n {\displaystyle n} attempts to solve each problem. If the most common answer is correct, the model earns a point. The cons@n score is the model's average score over all problems. Here "cons" stands for "consensus" or "majority voting". The pass@n score can be estimated more accurately by making N > n {\displaystyle N>n} attempts, and use the unbiased estimator 1 − ( N − c n ) ( N n ) {\displaystyle 1-{\frac {\binom {N-c}{n}}{\binom {N}{n}}}} , where c {\displaystyle c} is the number of correct attempts. For less well-formed tasks, where the output can be any sentence, there are the following commonly used scores including BLEU ROUGE, METEOR, NIST, word error rate, LEPOR, CIDEr, and SPICE. === Issues === error: Some benchmark answers may be wrong. ambiguity: Some benchmark questions may be ambiguously worded. subjective: Some benchmark questions may not have an objective answer at all. This problem generally prevents creative writing benchmarks. Similarly, this prevents benchmarking writing proofs in natural language, though benchmarking proofs in a formal language is possible. open-ended: Some benchmark questions may not have a single answer of a fixed size. This problem generally prevents programming benchmarks from using more natural tasks such as "write a program for X", and instead uses tasks such as "write a function that implements specification X". inter-annotator agreement: Some benchmark questions may be not fully objective, such that even people would not agree with 100% on what the answer should be. This is common in natural language processing tasks, such as syntactic annotation. shortcut: Some benchmark questions may be easily solved by an "unintended" shortcut. For example, in the SNLI benchmark, having a negative word like "not" in the second sentence is a strong signal for the "Contradiction" category, regardless of what the se

  Read more →
• 

  Plum Voice

  The Plum Group, Inc. (DBA Plum Voice) is a company. Plum is headquartered in New York City with offices in Boston and Denver. == History == Plum Voice, founded in 2000 as The Plum Group, Inc., was incorporated to create technologies for personalized audio communication. By 2001, Plum had commercialized the open-standard Plum VoiceXML IVR platform which facilitated the creation of dynamic telecom applications. 2001 - Commercial launch of Plum VoiceXML IVR platform for customer-premises deployment 2002 - Launch of Plum Voice Hosting Centers for 24x7x365 managed IVR hosting 2004 - Plum Voice application suite receives a "Product of the Year" award from Customer Interactions magazine 2008 - Plum Survey builder launched, a do-it-yourself IVR survey tool. 2010 - Plum launched QuickFuse, a web-based rapid development platform used to create voice applications. 2013 - Plum launched VoiceTrends, an analytics and reporting toolkit designed specifically for voice applications. Plum achieves PCI-DSS Level 1. 2015 - Plum launched Plum Insight, a multi-channel (voice, web, mobile) survey platform. Plum achieves HIPAA compliance. 2016 - Plum launched a new version of QuickFuse called Fuse+. 2020 - Plum sunsets QuickFuse, rebrands Fuse+ as Plum Fuse.

  Read more →
• 

  Controlled natural language

  Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are subsets of natural languages that are obtained by restricting the grammar and vocabulary in order to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and complexity. Traditionally, controlled languages fall into two major types: those that improve readability for human readers (e.g. non-native speakers), and those that enable reliable automatic semantic analysis of the language. The first type of languages (often called "simplified" or "technical" languages), for example ASD Simplified Technical English, Caterpillar Technical English, IBM's Easy English, are used in the industry to increase the quality of technical documentation, and possibly simplify the semi-automatic translation of the documentation. These languages restrict the writer by general rules such as "Keep sentences short", "Avoid the use of pronouns", "Only use dictionary-approved words", and "Use only the active voice". The second type of languages have a formal syntax and formal semantics, and can be mapped to an existing formal language, such as first-order logic. Thus, those languages can be used as knowledge representation languages, and writing of those languages is supported by fully automatic consistency and redundancy checks, query answering, etc. == Languages == Existing controlled natural languages include: == Encoding == IETF has reserved simple as a BCP 47 variant subtag for simplified versions of languages.

  Read more →
• 

  Concept mining

  Concept mining is an activity that results in the extraction of concepts from artifacts. Solutions to the task typically involve aspects of artificial intelligence and statistics, such as data mining and text mining. Because artifacts are typically a loosely structured sequence of words and other symbols (rather than concepts), the problem is nontrivial, but it can provide powerful insights into the meaning, provenance and similarity of documents. == Methods == Traditionally, the conversion of words to concepts has been performed using a thesaurus, and for computational techniques the tendency is to do the same. The thesauri used are either specially created for the task, or a pre-existing language model, usually related to Princeton's WordNet. The mappings of words to concepts are often ambiguous. Typically each word in a given language will relate to several possible concepts. Humans use context to disambiguate the various meanings of a given piece of text, where available machine translation systems cannot easily infer context. For the purposes of concept mining, however, these ambiguities tend to be less important than they are with machine translation, for in large documents the ambiguities tend to even out, much as is the case with text mining. There are many techniques for disambiguation that may be used. Examples are linguistic analysis of the text and the use of word and concept association frequency information that may be inferred from large text corpora. Recently, techniques that base on semantic similarity between the possible concepts and the context have appeared and gained interest in the scientific community. == Applications == === Detecting and indexing similar documents in large corpora === One of the spin-offs of calculating document statistics in the concept domain, rather than the word domain, is that concepts form natural tree structures based on hypernymy and meronymy. These structures can be used to generate simple tree membership statistics, that can be used to locate any document in a Euclidean concept space. If the size of a document is also considered as another dimension of this space then an extremely efficient indexing system can be created. This technique is currently in commercial use locating similar legal documents in a 2.5 million document corpus. === Clustering documents by topic === Standard numeric clustering techniques may be used in "concept space" as described above to locate and index documents by the inferred topic. These are numerically far more efficient than their text mining cousins, and tend to behave more intuitively, in that they map better to the similarity measures a human would generate.

  Read more →
• 

  Image analysis

  Image analysis or imagery analysis is the extraction of meaningful information from images; mainly from digital images by means of digital image processing techniques. Image analysis tasks can be as simple as reading bar coded tags or as sophisticated as identifying a person from their face. Computers are indispensable for the analysis of large amounts of data, for tasks that require complex computation, or for the extraction of quantitative information. On the other hand, the human visual cortex is an excellent image analysis apparatus, especially for extracting higher-level information, and for many applications — including medicine, security, and remote sensing — human analysts still cannot be replaced by computers. For this reason, many important image analysis tools such as edge detectors and neural networks are inspired by human visual perception models. == Digital == Digital Image Analysis or Computer Image Analysis is when a computer or electrical device automatically studies an image to obtain useful information from it. Note that the device is often a computer but may also be an electrical circuit, a digital camera or a mobile phone. It involves the fields of computer or machine vision, and medical imaging, and makes heavy use of pattern recognition, digital geometry, and signal processing. This field of computer science developed in the 1950s at academic institutions such as the MIT A.I. Lab, originally as a branch of artificial intelligence and robotics. It is the quantitative or qualitative characterization of two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) digital images. 2D images are, for example, to be analyzed in computer vision, and 3D images in medical imaging. The field was established in the 1950s—1970s, for example with pioneering contributions by Azriel Rosenfeld, Herbert Freeman, Jack E. Bresenham, or King-Sun Fu. == Techniques == There are many different techniques used in automatically analysing images. Each technique may be useful for a small range of tasks, however there still aren't any known methods of image analysis that are generic enough for wide ranges of tasks, compared to the abilities of a human's image analysing capabilities. Examples of image analysis techniques in different fields include: 2D and 3D object recognition, image segmentation, motion detection e.g. Single particle tracking, video tracking, optical flow, medical scan analysis, 3D Pose Estimation. == Deep learning == Since the early 2010s, deep learning methods have substantially advanced the field of image analysis. In 2012, a deep convolutional neural network (CNN) known as AlexNet achieved a significant reduction in error rates on the ImageNet large-scale image classification benchmark, demonstrating the effectiveness of deep learning for visual recognition tasks. Subsequent architectures such as ResNet introduced residual connections that enabled training of much deeper networks, further improving accuracy across image analysis tasks. Real-time object detection became practical with frameworks such as YOLO (You Only Look Once), which unified detection and classification into a single network pass. In 2020, the Vision Transformer (ViT) demonstrated that transformer architectures, originally developed for natural language processing, could achieve competitive results on image classification when applied directly to sequences of image patches. More recently, foundation models trained on large-scale datasets have enabled zero-shot generalisation across image analysis tasks. The Segment Anything Model (SAM), trained on over one billion masks, can segment arbitrary objects in images without task-specific fine-tuning. These advances have made image analysis techniques increasingly accessible through browser-based tools and open-source implementations. == Applications == The applications of digital image analysis are continuously expanding through all areas of science and industry, including: anatomy, allows for precise measurements, visualization, and statistical analysis of anatomical structures. assay micro plate reading, such as detecting where a chemical was manufactured. astronomy, such as calculating the size of a planet. automated species identification (e.g. plant and animal species) defense error level analysis filtering machine vision, such as to automatically count items in a factory conveyor belt. materials science, such as determining if a metal weld has cracks. medicine, such as detecting cancer in a mammography scan. metallography, such as determining the mineral content of a rock sample. microscopy, such as counting the germs in a swab. automatic number plate recognition; optical character recognition, such as automatic license plate detection. remote sensing, such as detecting intruders in a house, and producing land cover/land use maps. robotics, such as to avoid steering into an obstacle. security, such as detecting a person's eye color or hair color. == Object-based == Object-based image analysis (OBIA) involves two typical processes, segmentation and classification. Segmentation helps to group pixels into homogeneous objects. The objects typically correspond to individual features of interest, although over-segmentation or under-segmentation is very likely. Classification then can be performed at object levels, using various statistics of the objects as features in the classifier. Statistics can include geometry, context and texture of image objects. Over-segmentation is often preferred over under-segmentation when classifying high-resolution images. Object-based image analysis has been applied in many fields, such as cell biology, medicine, earth sciences, and remote sensing. For example, it can detect changes of cellular shapes in the process of cell differentiation.; it has also been widely used in the mapping community to generate land cover. When applied to earth images, OBIA is known as geographic object-based image analysis (GEOBIA), defined as "a sub-discipline of geoinformation science devoted to (...) partitioning remote sensing (RS) imagery into meaningful image-objects, and assessing their characteristics through spatial, spectral and temporal scale". The international GEOBIA conference has been held biannually since 2006. OBIA techniques are implemented in software such as eCognition or the Orfeo toolbox.

  Read more →
• 

  XLeratorDB

  XLeratorDB is a suite of database function libraries that enable Microsoft SQL Server to perform a wide range of additional (non-native) business intelligence and ad hoc analytics. The libraries, which are embedded and run centrally on the database, include more than 450 individual functions similar to those found in Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. The individual functions are grouped and sold as six separate libraries based on usage: finance, statistics, math, engineering, unit conversions and strings. WestClinTech, the company that developed XLeratorDB, claims it is "the first commercial function package add-in for Microsoft SQL Server." == Company history == WestClinTech (LLC), founded by software industry veterans Charles Flock and Joe Stampf in 2008, is located in Irvington, New York, United States. Flock was a co-founder of The Frustum Group, developer of the OPICS enterprise banking and trading platform, which was acquired by London-based Misys, PLC in 1996. Stampf joined Frustum in 1994 and with Flock remained active with the company after acquisition, helping to develop successive generations of OPICS now employed by over 150 leading financial institutions worldwide. Following a full year of research, development and testing, WestClinTech introduced and recorded its first commercial sale of XLeratorDB in April 2009. In September 2009, XLeratorDB became available to all Federal agencies through NASA's Strategic Enterprise-Wide Procurement (SEWP-IV) program, a government-wide acquisition contract. == Technology == XLeratorDB uses Microsoft SQL CLR(Common Language Runtime) technology. SQL CLR allows managed code to be hosted by, and run in, the Microsoft SQL Server environment. SQL CLR relies on the creation, deployment and registration of .NET Framework assemblies that are physically stored in managed code dynamic-link libraries (DLL). The assemblies may contain .NET namespaces, classes, functions, and properties. Because managed code compiles to native code prior to execution, functions using SQL CLR can achieve significant performance increases versus the equivalent functions written in T-SQL in some scenarios. XLeratorDB requires Microsoft SQL Server 2005 or SQL Server 2005 Express editions, or later (compatibility mode 90 or higher). The product installs with PERMISSION_SET=SAFE. SAFE mode, the most restrictive permission set, is accessible by all users. Code executed by an assembly with SAFE permissions cannot access external system resources such as files, the network, the internet, environment variables, or the registry. == Functions == In computer science, a function is a portion of code within a larger program which performs a specific task and is relatively independent of the remaining code. As used in database and spreadsheet applications these functions generally represent mathematical formulas widely used across a variety of fields. While this code may be user-generated, it is also embedded as a pre-written sub-routine in applications. These functions are typically identified by common nomenclature which corresponds to their underlying operations: e.g. IRR identifies the function which calculates Internal Rate of Return on a series of periodic cash flows. === Function uses === As subroutines, functions can be integrated and used in a variety of ways, and as part of larger, more complicated applications. Within large enterprise applications they may, for example, play an important role in defining business rules or risk management parameters, while remaining virtually invisible to end users. Within database management systems and spreadsheets, however, these kinds of functions also represent discrete sets of tools; they can be accessed directly and utilized on a stand-alone basis, or in more complex, user-defined configurations. In this context, functions can be used for business intelligence and ad hoc analysis of data in fields such as finance, statistics, engineering, math, etc. === Function types === XLeratorDB uses three kinds of functions to perform analytic operations: scalar, aggregate, and a hybrid form which WestClinTech calls Range Queries. Scalar functions take a single value, perform an operation and return a single value. An example of this type of function is LOG, which returns the logarithm of a number to a specified base. Aggregate functions operate on a series of values but return a single, summarizing value. An example of this type of function is AVG, which returns the average of values in a specified group. In XLeratorDB there are some functions which have characteristics of aggregate functions (operating on multiple series of values) but cannot be processed in SQL CLR using single column inputs, such as AVG does. For example, irregular internal rate of return (XIRR), a financial function, operates on a collection of cash flow values from one column, but must also apply variable period lengths from another column and an initial iterative assumption from a third, in order to return a single, summarizing value. WestClinTech documentation notes that Range Queries specify the data to be included in the result set of the function independently of the WHERE clause associated with the T-SQL statement, by incorporating a SELECT statement into the function as a string argument; the function then traps that SELECT statement, executes it internally and processes the result. Some XLeratorDB functions that employ Range Queries are: NPV, XNPV, IRR, XIRR, MIRR, MULTINOMIAL, and SERIESSUM. Within the application these functions are identified by a "_q" naming convention: e.g. NPV_q, IRR_q, etc. == Analytic functions == === SQL Server functions === Microsoft SQL Server is the #3 selling database management system (DBMS), behind Oracle and IBM. (While versions of SQL Server have been on the market since 1987, XLeratorDB is compatible with only the 2005 edition and later.) Like all major DBMS, SQL Server performs a variety of data mining operations by returning or arraying data in different views (also known as drill-down). In addition, SQL Server uses Transact-SQL (T-SQL) to execute four major classes of pre-defined functions in native mode. Functions operating on the DBMS offer several advantages over client layer applications like Excel: they utilize the most up-to-date data available; they can process far larger quantities of data; and, the data is not subject to exporting and transcription errors. SQL Server 2008 includes a total of 58 functions that perform relatively basic aggregation (12), math (23) and string manipulation (23) operations useful for analytics; it includes no native functions that perform more complex operations directly related to finance, statistics or engineering. === Excel functions === Microsoft Excel, a component of Microsoft Office suite, is one of the most widely used spreadsheet applications on the market today. In addition to its inherent utility as a stand-alone desktop application, Excel overlaps and complements the functionality of DBMS in several ways: storing and arraying data in rows and columns; performing certain basic tasks such as pivot table and aggregating values; and facilitating sharing, importing and exporting of database data. Excel's chief limitation relative to a true database is capacity; Excel 2003 is limited to some 65k rows and 256 columns; Excel 2007 extends this capacity to roughly 1million rows and 16k columns. By comparison, SQL Server is able to manage over 500k terabytes of memory. Excel offers, however, an extensive library of specialized pre-written functions which are useful for performing ad hoc analysis on database data. Excel 2007 includes over 300 of these pre-defined functions, although customized functions can also be created by users, or imported from third party developers as add-ons. Excel functions are grouped by type: === Excel business intelligence functions === Operating on the client computing layer Excel plays an important role as a business intelligence tool because it: performs a wide array of complex analytic functions not native to most DBMS software offers far greater ad hoc reporting and analytic flexibility than most enterprise software provides a medium for sharing and collaborating because of its ubiquity throughout the enterprise Microsoft reinforces this positioning with Business Intelligence documentation that positions Excel in a clearly pivotal role. === XLeratorDB vs. Excel functions === While operating within the database environment, XLeratorDB functions utilize the same naming conventions and input formats, and in most cases, return the same calculation results as Excel functions. XLeratorDB, coupled with SQL Server's native capabilities, compares to Excel's function sets as follows:

  Read more →
• 

  DryvIQ

  DryvIQ is a software application that enables businesses to migrate on-site system files and associated data across storage and content management platforms, as well as create synchronized hybrid storage systems. == History == Before it was DryvIQ, the software SkySync was released in 2013 by Ann Arbor, Michigan based company, Portal Architects, Inc. The company created SkySync, a back-end, administrative application designed to transfer content across storage platforms, after abandoning 18 months of development on a desktop application called SkyBrary in 2011. Between 2014 and 2015, Portal Architects established partnerships with the following companies: Autodesk, Box, Dropbox, Egnyte, EMC, Google, Syncplicity, Huddle, IBM, Microsoft, OpenText, Oracle, Citrix ShareFile, Hightail and Internet2. SkySync (currently DryvIQ) was named a "Cool Vendor in Content Management" by Gartner in 2015. In 2022, SkySync changed its name to DryvIQ, which is now what the company is currently known as. == Overview == DryvIQ is a software application that syncs, migrates or backs up files including their associated properties, metadata, versions, user accounts and permissions across on-premises and Cloud-based storage platforms. The software deploys on a server, virtual machine or within Microsoft Azure, Amazon Web Services or other cloud computing services.

  Read more →
• 

  ViBe

  ViBe is a background subtraction algorithm which has been presented at the IEEE ICASSP 2009 conference and was refined in later publications. More precisely, it is a software module for extracting background information from moving images. It has been developed by Oliver Barnich and Marc Van Droogenbroeck of the Montefiore Institute, University of Liège, Belgium. ViBe is patented: the patent covers various aspects such as stochastic replacement, spatial diffusion, and non-chronological handling. ViBe is written in the programming language C, and has been implemented on CPU, GPU and FPGA. == Technical description == Source: === Pixel model and classification process === Many advanced techniques are used to provide an estimate of the temporal probability density function (pdf) of a pixel x. ViBe's approach is different, as it imposes the influence of a value in the polychromatic space to be limited to the local neighborhood. In practice, ViBe does not estimate the pdf, but uses a set of previously observed sample values as a pixel model. To classify a value pt(x), it is compared to its closest values among the set of samples. === Model update: Sample values lifespan policy === ViBe ensures a smooth exponentially decaying lifespan for the sample values that constitute the pixel models. This makes ViBe able to successfully deal with concomitant events with a single model of a reasonable size for each pixel. This is achieved by choosing, randomly, which sample to replace when updating a pixel model. Once the sample to be discarded has been chosen, the new value replaces the discarded sample. The pixel model that would result from the update of a given pixel model with a given pixel sample cannot be predicted since the value to be discarded is chosen at random. === Model update: Spatial Consistency === To ensure the spatial consistency of the whole image model and handle practical situations such as small camera movements or slowly evolving background objects, ViBe uses a technique similar to that developed for the updating process in which it chooses at random and update a pixel model in the neighborhood of the current pixel. By denoting NG(x) and p(x) respectively the spatial neighborhood of a pixel x and its value, and assuming that it was decided to update the set of samples of x by inserting p(x), then ViBe also use this value p(x) to update the set of samples of one of the pixels in the neighborhood NG(x), chosen at random. As a result, ViBe is able to produce spatially coherent results directly without the use of any post-processing method. === Model initialization === Although the model could easily recover from any type of initialization, for example by choosing a set of random values, it is convenient to get an accurate background estimate as soon as possible. Ideally a segmentation algorithm would like to be able to segment the video sequences starting from the second frame, the first frame being used to initialize the model. Since no temporal information is available prior to the second frame, ViBe populates the pixel models with values found in the spatial neighborhood of each pixel; more precisely, it initializes the background model with values taken randomly in each pixel neighborhood of the first frame. The background estimate is therefore valid starting from the second frame of a video sequence.

  Read more →
• 

  Object co-segmentation

  In computer vision, object co-segmentation is a special case of image segmentation, which is defined as jointly segmenting semantically similar objects in multiple images or video frames. == Challenges == It is often challenging to extract segmentation masks of a target/object from a noisy collection of images or video frames, which involves object discovery coupled with segmentation. A noisy collection implies that the object/target is present sporadically in a set of images or the object/target disappears intermittently throughout the video of interest. Early methods typically involve mid-level representations such as object proposals. == Dynamic Markov networks-based methods == A joint object discover and co-segmentation method based on coupled dynamic Markov networks has been proposed recently, which claims significant improvements in robustness against irrelevant/noisy video frames. Unlike previous efforts which conveniently assumes the consistent presence of the target objects throughout the input video, this coupled dual dynamic Markov network based algorithm simultaneously carries out both the detection and segmentation tasks with two respective Markov networks jointly updated via belief propagation. Specifically, the Markov network responsible for segmentation is initialized with superpixels and provides information for its Markov counterpart responsible for the object detection task. Conversely, the Markov network responsible for detection builds the object proposal graph with inputs including the spatio-temporal segmentation tubes. == Graph cut-based methods == Graph cut optimization is a popular tool in computer vision, especially in earlier image segmentation applications. As an extension of regular graph cuts, multi-level hypergraph cut is proposed to account for more complex high order correspondences among video groups beyond typical pairwise correlations. With such hypergraph extension, multiple modalities of correspondences, including low-level appearance, saliency, coherent motion and high level features such as object regions, could be seamlessly incorporated in the hyperedge computation. In addition, as a core advantage over co-occurrence based approach, hypergraph implicitly retains more complex correspondences among its vertices, with the hyperedge weights conveniently computed by eigenvalue decomposition of Laplacian matrices. == CNN/LSTM-based methods == In action localization applications, object co-segmentation is also implemented as the segment-tube spatio-temporal detector. Inspired by the recent spatio-temporal action localization efforts with tubelets (sequences of bounding boxes), Le et al. present a new spatio-temporal action localization detector Segment-tube, which consists of sequences of per-frame segmentation masks. This Segment-tube detector can temporally pinpoint the starting/ending frame of each action category in the presence of preceding/subsequent interference actions in untrimmed videos. Simultaneously, the Segment-tube detector produces per-frame segmentation masks instead of bounding boxes, offering superior spatial accuracy to tubelets. This is achieved by alternating iterative optimization between temporal action localization and spatial action segmentation. The proposed segment-tube detector is illustrated in the flowchart on the right. The sample input is an untrimmed video containing all frames in a pair figure skating video, with only a portion of these frames belonging to a relevant category (e.g., the DeathSpirals). Initialized with saliency based image segmentation on individual frames, this method first performs temporal action localization step with a cascaded 3D CNN and LSTM, and pinpoints the starting frame and the ending frame of a target action with a coarse-to-fine strategy. Subsequently, the segment-tube detector refines per-frame spatial segmentation with graph cut by focusing on relevant frames identified by the temporal action localization step. The optimization alternates between the temporal action localization and spatial action segmentation in an iterative manner. Upon practical convergence, the final spatio-temporal action localization results are obtained in the format of a sequence of per-frame segmentation masks (bottom row in the flowchart) with precise starting/ending frames.

  Read more →
• 

  Situated

  In artificial intelligence and cognitive science, the term situated refers to an agent which is embedded in an environment. The term situated is commonly used to refer to robots, but some researchers argue that software agents can also be situated if: they exist in a dynamic (rapidly changing) environment, which they can manipulate or change through their actions, and which they can sense or perceive. Examples might include web-based agents, which can alter data or trigger processes (such as purchases) over the internet, or virtual-reality bots which inhabit and change virtual worlds, such as Second Life. Being situated is generally considered to be part of being embodied, but it is useful to consider each perspective individually. The situated perspective emphasizes that intelligent behaviour derives from the environment and the agent's interactions with it. The nature of these interactions are defined by an agent's embodiment.

  Read more →
• 

  Text Retrieval Conference

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

  Read more →
• 

  Eugene Goostman

  Eugene Goostman is a chatbot that some regard as having passed the Turing test, a test of a computer's ability to communicate indistinguishably from a human. Developed in Saint Petersburg in 2001 by a group of three programmers, the Russian-born Vladimir Veselov, Ukrainian-born Eugene Demchenko, and Russian-born Sergey Ulasen, Goostman is portrayed as a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy—characteristics that are intended to induce forgiveness in those with whom it interacts for its grammatical errors and lack of general knowledge. The Goostman bot has competed in a number of Turing test contests since its creation, and finished second in the 2005 and 2008 Loebner Prize contest. In June 2012, at an event marking what would have been the 100th birthday of the test's author, Alan Turing, Goostman won a competition promoted as the largest-ever Turing test contest, in which it successfully convinced 29% of its judges that it was human. On 7 June 2014, at a contest marking the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, 33% of the event's judges thought that Goostman was human; the event's organiser Kevin Warwick considered it to have passed Turing's test as a result, per Turing's prediction in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", that by the year 2000, machines would be capable of fooling 30% of human judges after five minutes of questioning. The validity and relevance of the announcement of Goostman's pass was questioned by critics, who noted the exaggeration of the achievement by Warwick, the bot's use of personality quirks and humour in an attempt to misdirect users from its non-human tendencies and lack of real intelligence, along with "passes" achieved by other chatbots at similar events. == Personality == Eugene Goostman is portrayed as being a 13-year-old boy from Odesa, Ukraine, who has a pet guinea pig and a father who is a gynaecologist. Veselov stated that Goostman was designed to be a "character with a believable personality". The choice of age was intentional, as, in Veselov's opinion, a thirteen-year-old is "not too old to know everything and not too young to know nothing". Goostman's young age also induces people who "converse" with him to forgive minor grammatical errors in his responses. In 2014, work was made on improving the bot's "dialog controller", allowing Goostman to output more human-like dialogue. A conversation between Scott Aaronson and Eugene Goostman ran as follows: == Competitions == Eugene Goostman has competed in a number of Turing test competitions, including the Loebner Prize contest; it finished joint second in the Loebner test in 2001, and came second to Jabberwacky in 2005 and to Elbot in 2008. On 23 June 2012, Goostman won a Turing test competition at Bletchley Park in Milton Keynes, held to mark the centenary of its namesake, Alan Turing. The competition, which featured five bots, twenty-five hidden humans, and thirty judges, was considered to be the largest-ever Turing test contest by its organizers. After a series of five-minute-long text conversations, 29% of the judges were convinced that the bot was an actual human. === 2014 "pass" === On 7 June 2014, in a Turing test competition at the Royal Society, organised by Kevin Warwick of the University of Reading to mark the 60th anniversary of Turing's death, Goostman won after 33% of the judges were convinced that the bot was human. 30 judges took part in the event, which included Lord Sharkey, a sponsor of Turing's posthumous pardon, artificial intelligence Professor Aaron Sloman, Fellow of the Royal Society Mark Pagel and Red Dwarf actor Robert Llewellyn. Each judge partook in a textual conversation with each of the five bots; at the same time, they also conversed with a human. In all, a total of 300 conversations were conducted. In Warwick's view, this made Goostman the first machine to pass a Turing test. In a press release, he added that: Some will claim that the Test has already been passed. The words Turing Test have been applied to similar competitions around the world. However this event involved more simultaneous comparison tests than ever before, was independently verified and, crucially, the conversations were unrestricted. A true Turing Test does not set the questions or topics prior to the conversations. In his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence", Turing predicted that by the year 2000, computer programs would be sufficiently advanced that the average interrogator would, after five minutes of questioning, "not have more than 70 per cent chance" of correctly guessing whether they were speaking to a human or a machine. Although Turing phrased this as a prediction rather than a "threshold for intelligence", commentators believe that Warwick had chosen to interpret it as meaning that if 30% of interrogators were fooled, the software had "passed the Turing test". ==== Reactions ==== Warwick's claim that Eugene Goostman was the first ever chatbot to pass a Turing test was met with scepticism; critics acknowledged similar "passes" made in the past by other chatbots under the 30% criteria, including PC Therapist in 1991 (which tricked 5 of 10 judges, 50%), and at the Techniche festival in 2011, where a modified version of Cleverbot tricked 59.3% of 1334 votes (which included the 30 judges, along with an audience). Cleverbot's developer, Rollo Carpenter, argued that Turing tests can only prove that a machine can "imitate" intelligence rather than show actual intelligence. Gary Marcus was critical of Warwick's claims, arguing that Goostman's "success" was only the result of a "cleverly-coded piece of software", going on to say that "it's easy to see how an untrained judge might mistake wit for reality, but once you have an understanding of how this sort of system works, the constant misdirection and deflection becomes obvious, even irritating. The illusion, in other words, is fleeting." While acknowledging IBM's Deep Blue and Watson projects—single-purpose computer systems meant for playing chess and the quiz show Jeopardy! respectively—as examples of computer systems that show a degree of intelligence in their specialised field, he further argued that they were not an equivalent to a computer system that shows "broad" intelligence, and could—for example, watch a television programme and answer questions on its content. Marcus stated that "no existing combination of hardware and software can learn completely new things at will the way a clever child can." However, he still believed that there were potential uses for technology such as that of Goostman, specifically suggesting the creation of "believable", interactive video game characters. Imperial College London professor Murray Shanahan questioned the validity and scientific basis of the test, stating that it was "completely misplaced, and it devalues real AI research. It makes it seem like science fiction AI is nearly here, when in fact it's not and it's incredibly difficult." Mike Masnick, editor of the blog Techdirt, was also skeptical, questioning publicity blunders such as the five chatbots being referred to in press releases as "supercomputers", and saying that "creating a chatbot that can fool humans is not really the same thing as creating artificial intelligence."

  Read more →