AI Data Farms

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

• 

  BERT (language model)

  Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT) is a language model introduced in October 2018 by researchers at Google. It learns to represent text as a sequence of vectors using self-supervised learning. It uses the encoder-only transformer architecture. BERT dramatically improved the state of the art for large language models. As of 2020, BERT is a ubiquitous baseline in natural language processing (NLP) experiments. BERT is trained by masked token prediction and next sentence prediction. With this training, BERT learns contextual, latent representations of tokens in their context, similar to ELMo and GPT-2. It found applications for many natural language processing tasks, such as coreference resolution and polysemy resolution. It improved on ELMo and spawned the study of "BERTology", which attempts to interpret what is learned by BERT. BERT was originally implemented in the English language at two model sizes, BERTBASE (110 million parameters) and BERTLARGE (340 million parameters). Both were trained on the Toronto BookCorpus (800M words) and English Wikipedia (2,500M words). The weights were released on GitHub. On March 11, 2020, 24 smaller models were released, the smallest being BERTTINY with just 4 million parameters. == Architecture == BERT is an "encoder-only" transformer architecture. At a high level, BERT consists of 4 modules: Tokenizer: This module converts a piece of English text into a sequence of integers ("tokens"). Embedding: This module converts the sequence of tokens into an array of real-valued vectors representing the tokens. It represents the conversion of discrete token types into a lower-dimensional Euclidean space. Encoder: a stack of Transformer blocks with self-attention, but without causal masking. Task head: This module converts the final representation vectors into one-shot encoded tokens again by producing a predicted probability distribution over the token types. It can be viewed as a simple decoder, decoding the latent representation into token types, or as an "un-embedding layer". The task head is necessary for pre-training, but it is often unnecessary for so-called "downstream tasks," such as question answering or sentiment classification. Instead, one removes the task head and replaces it with a newly initialized module suited for the task, and finetune the new module. The latent vector representation of the model is directly fed into this new module, allowing for sample-efficient transfer learning. === Embedding === This section describes the embedding used by BERTBASE. The other one, BERTLARGE, is similar, just larger. The tokenizer of BERT is WordPiece, which is a sub-word strategy like byte-pair encoding. Its vocabulary size is 30,000, and any token not appearing in its vocabulary is replaced by [UNK] ("unknown"). The first layer is the embedding layer, which contains three components: token type embeddings, position embeddings, and segment type embeddings. Token type: The token type is a standard embedding layer, translating a one-hot vector into a dense vector based on its token type. Position: The position embeddings are based on a token's position in the sequence. BERT uses absolute position embeddings, where each position in a sequence is mapped to a real-valued vector. Each dimension of the vector consists of a sinusoidal function that takes the position in the sequence as input. Segment type: Using a vocabulary of just 0 or 1, this embedding layer produces a dense vector based on whether the token belongs to the first or second text segment in that input. In other words, type-1 tokens are all tokens that appear after the [SEP] special token. All prior tokens are type-0. The three embedding vectors are added together representing the initial token representation as a function of these three pieces of information. After embedding, the vector representation is normalized using a LayerNorm operation, outputting a 768-dimensional vector for each input token. After this, the representation vectors are passed forward through 12 Transformer encoder blocks, and are decoded back to 30,000-dimensional vocabulary space using a basic affine transformation layer. === Architectural family === The encoder stack of BERT has 2 free parameters: L {\displaystyle L} , the number of layers, and H {\displaystyle H} , the hidden size. There are always H / 64 {\displaystyle H/64} self-attention heads, and the feed-forward/filter size is always 4 H {\displaystyle 4H} . By varying these two numbers, one obtains an entire family of BERT models. For BERT: the feed-forward size and filter size are synonymous. Both of them denote the number of dimensions in the middle layer of the feed-forward network. the hidden size and embedding size are synonymous. Both of them denote the number of real numbers used to represent a token. The notation for encoder stack is written as L/H. For example, BERTBASE is written as 12L/768H, BERTLARGE as 24L/1024H, and BERTTINY as 2L/128H. == Training == === Pre-training === BERT was pre-trained simultaneously on two tasks: Masked language modeling (MLM): In this task, BERT ingests a sequence of words, where one word may be randomly changed ("masked"), and BERT tries to predict the original words that had been changed. For example, in the sentence "The cat sat on the [MASK]," BERT would need to predict "mat." This helps BERT learn bidirectional context, meaning it understands the relationships between words not just from left to right or right to left but from both directions at the same time. Next sentence prediction (NSP): In this task, BERT is trained to predict whether one sentence logically follows another. For example, given two sentences, "The cat sat on the mat" and "It was a sunny day", BERT has to decide if the second sentence is a valid continuation of the first one. This helps BERT understand relationships between sentences, which is important for tasks like question answering or document classification. ==== Masked language modeling ==== In masked language modeling, 15% of tokens would be randomly selected for masked-prediction task, and the training objective was to predict the masked token given its context. In more detail, the selected token is: replaced with a [MASK] token with probability 80%, replaced with a random word token with probability 10%, not replaced with probability 10%. The reason not all selected tokens are masked is to avoid the dataset shift problem. The dataset shift problem arises when the distribution of inputs seen during training differs significantly from the distribution encountered during inference. A trained BERT model might be applied to word representation (like Word2Vec), where it would be run over sentences not containing any [MASK] tokens. It is later found that more diverse training objectives are generally better. As an illustrative example, consider the sentence "my dog is cute". It would first be divided into tokens like "my1 dog2 is3 cute4". Then a random token in the sentence would be picked. Let it be the 4th one "cute4". Next, there would be three possibilities: with probability 80%, the chosen token is masked, resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 [MASK]4"; with probability 10%, the chosen token is replaced by a uniformly sampled random token, such as "happy", resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 happy4"; with probability 10%, nothing is done, resulting in "my1 dog2 is3 cute4". After processing the input text, the model's 4th output vector is passed to its decoder layer, which outputs a probability distribution over its 30,000-dimensional vocabulary space. ==== Next sentence prediction ==== Given two sentences, the model predicts if they appear sequentially in the training corpus, outputting either [IsNext] or [NotNext]. During training, the algorithm sometimes samples two sentences from a single continuous span in the training corpus, while at other times, it samples two sentences from two discontinuous spans. The first sentence starts with a special token, [CLS] (for "classify"). The two sentences are separated by another special token, [SEP] (for "separate"). After processing the two sentences, the final vector for the [CLS] token is passed to a linear layer for binary classification into [IsNext] and [NotNext]. For example: Given "[CLS] my dog is cute [SEP] he likes playing [SEP]", the model should predict [IsNext]. Given "[CLS] my dog is cute [SEP] how do magnets work [SEP]", the model should predict [NotNext]. === Fine-tuning === BERT is meant as a general pretrained model for various applications in natural language processing. That is, after pre-training, BERT can be fine-tuned with fewer resources on smaller datasets to optimize its performance on specific tasks such as natural language inference and text classification, and sequence-to-sequence-based language generation tasks such as question answering and conversational response generation. The original BERT paper published results demonstrating that a small amount of fine

  Read more →
• 

  Human-based evolutionary computation

  Human-based evolutionary computation (HBEC) is a set of evolutionary computation techniques that rely on human innovation. == Classes and examples == Human-based evolutionary computation techniques can be classified into three more specific classes analogous to ones in evolutionary computation. There are three basic types of innovation: initialization, mutation, and recombination. Here is a table illustrating which type of human innovation are supported in different classes of HBEC: All these three classes also have to implement selection, performed either by humans or by computers. === Human-based selection strategy === Human-based selection strategy is a simplest human-based evolutionary computation procedure. It is used heavily today by websites outsourcing collection and selection of the content to humans (user-contributed content). Viewed as evolutionary computation, their mechanism supports two operations: initialization (when a user adds a new item) and selection (when a user expresses preference among items). The website software aggregates the preferences to compute the fitness of items so that it can promote the fittest items and discard the worst ones. Several methods of human-based selection were analytically compared in studies by Kosorukoff and Gentry. Because the concept seems too simple, most of the websites implementing the idea can't avoid the common pitfall: informational cascade in soliciting human preference. For example, digg-style implementations, pervasive on the web, heavily bias subsequent human evaluations by prior ones by showing how many votes the items already have. This makes the aggregated evaluation depend on a very small initial sample of rarely independent evaluations. This encourages many people to game the system that might add to digg's popularity but detract from the quality of the featured results. It is too easy to submit evaluation in digg-style system based only on the content title, without reading the actual content supposed to be evaluated. A better example of a human-based selection system is Stumbleupon. In Stumbleupon, users first experience the content (stumble upon it), and can then submit their preference by pressing a thumb-up or thumb-down button. Because the user doesn't see the number of votes given to the site by previous users, Stumbleupon can collect a relatively unbiased set of user preferences, and thus evaluate content much more precisely. === Human-based evolution strategy === In this context and maybe generally, the Wikipedia software is the best illustration of a working human-based evolution strategy wherein the (targeted) evolution of any given page comprises the fine tuning of the knowledge base of such information that relates to that page. Traditional evolution strategy has three operators: initialization, mutation, and selection. In the case of Wikipedia, the initialization operator is page creation, the mutation operator is incremental page editing. The selection operator is less salient. It is provided by the revision history and the ability to select among all previous revisions via a revert operation. If the page is vandalised and no longer a good fit to its title, a reader can easily go to the revision history and select one of the previous revisions that fits best (hopefully, the previous one). This selection feature is crucial to the success of the Wikipedia. An interesting fact is that the original wiki software was created in 1995, but it took at least another six years for large wiki-based collaborative projects to appear. Why did it take so long? One explanation is that the original wiki software lacked a selection operation and hence couldn't effectively support content evolution. The addition of revision history and the rise of large wiki-supported communities coincide in time. From an evolutionary computation point of view, this is not surprising: without a selection operation the content would undergo an aimless genetic drift and would unlikely to be useful to anyone. That is what many people expected from Wikipedia at its inception. However, with a selection operation, the utility of content has a tendency to improve over time as beneficial changes accumulate. This is what actually happens on a large scale in Wikipedia. === Human-based genetic algorithm === Human-based genetic algorithm (HBGA) provides means for human-based recombination operation (a distinctive feature of genetic algorithms). Recombination operator brings together highly fit parts of different solutions that evolved independently. This makes the evolutionary process more efficient.

  Read more →
• 

  Type-1 OWA operators

  Type-1 OWA operators are a set of aggregation operators that generalise the Yager's OWA (ordered weighted averaging) operators in the interest of aggregating fuzzy sets rather than crisp values in soft decision making and data mining. These operators provide a mathematical technique for directly aggregating uncertain information with uncertain weights via OWA mechanism in soft decision making and data mining, where these uncertain objects are modelled by fuzzy sets. The two definitions for type-1 OWA operators are based on Zadeh's Extension Principle and α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets. The two definitions lead to equivalent results. == Definitions == === Definition 1 === Let F ( X ) {\displaystyle F(X)} be the set of fuzzy sets with domain of discourse X {\displaystyle X} , a type-1 OWA operator is defined as follows: Given n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,1]} , a type-1 OWA operator is a mapping, Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , Φ : F ( X ) × ⋯ × F ( X ) ⟶ F ( X ) {\displaystyle \Phi \colon F(X)\times \cdots \times F(X)\longrightarrow F(X)} ( A 1 , ⋯ , A n ) ↦ Y {\displaystyle (A^{1},\cdots ,A^{n})\mapsto Y} such that μ Y ( y ) = sup ∑ k = 1 n w ¯ i a σ ( i ) = y ( μ W 1 ( w 1 ) ∧ ⋯ ∧ μ W n ( w n ) ∧ μ A 1 ( a 1 ) ∧ ⋯ ∧ μ A n ( a n ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y}(y)=\displaystyle \sup _{\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}{\bar {w}}_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}=y}\left({\begin{array}{{1}l}\mu _{W^{1}}(w_{1})\wedge \cdots \wedge \mu _{W^{n}}(w_{n})\wedge \mu _{A^{1}}(a_{1})\wedge \cdots \wedge \mu _{A^{n}}(a_{n})\end{array}}\right)} where w ¯ i = w i ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{i}={\frac {w_{i}}{\sum _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}} , and σ : { 1 , ⋯ , n } ⟶ { 1 , ⋯ , n } {\displaystyle \sigma \colon \{1,\cdots ,n\}\longrightarrow \{1,\cdots ,n\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , ⋯ , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\ \forall i=1,\cdots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th highest element in the set { a 1 , ⋯ , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . === Definition 2 === Using the alpha-cuts of fuzzy sets: Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , then for each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,\;1]} , an α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operator with α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level sets { W α i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W_{\alpha }^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} to aggregate the α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets { A i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{A^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} is: Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) = { ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) ∑ i = 1 n w i | w i ∈ W α i , a i ∈ A α i , i = 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)=\left\{{{\frac {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}}}{\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}\left|{w_{i}\in W_{\alpha }^{i},\;a_{i}}\right.\in A_{\alpha }^{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,n}\right\}} where W α i = { w | μ W i ( w ) ≥ α } , A α i = { x | μ A i ( x ) ≥ α } {\displaystyle W_{\alpha }^{i}=\{w|\mu _{W_{i}}(w)\geq \alpha \},A_{\alpha }^{i}=\{x|\mu _{A_{i}}(x)\geq \alpha \}} , and σ : { 1 , ⋯ , n } → { 1 , ⋯ , n } {\displaystyle \sigma :\{\;1,\cdots ,n\;\}\to \{\;1,\cdots ,n\;\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , ⋯ , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\;\forall \;i=1,\cdots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th largest element in the set { a 1 , ⋯ , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . == Representation theorem of Type-1 OWA operators == Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , and the fuzzy sets A 1 , ⋯ , A n {\displaystyle A^{1},\cdots ,A^{n}} , then we have that Y = G {\displaystyle Y=G} where Y {\displaystyle Y} is the aggregation result obtained by Definition 1, and G {\displaystyle G} is the result obtained by in Definition 2. == Programming problems for Type-1 OWA operators == According to the Representation Theorem of Type-1 OWA Operators, a general type-1 OWA operator can be decomposed into a series of α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operators. In practice, this series of α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operators is used to construct the resulting aggregation fuzzy set. So we only need to compute the left end-points and right end-points of the intervals Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)} . Then, the resulting aggregation fuzzy set is constructed with the membership function as follows: μ G ( x ) = ⋁ α : x ∈ Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) α ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\operatorname {\bigvee } \limits _{\alpha :x\in \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{\alpha }}\alpha } For the left end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) − = min W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}=\operatorname {\min } \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} while for the right end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) + = max W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+}=\operatorname {\max } \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} A fast method has been presented to solve two programming problem so that the type-1 OWA aggregation operation can be performed efficiently, for details, please see the paper. == Alpha-level approach to Type-1 OWA operation == Three-step process: Step 1—To set up the α {\displaystyle \alpha } - level resolution in [0, 1]. Step 2—For each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,1]} , Step 2.1—To calculate ρ α + i 0 ∗ {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}} Let i 0 = 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}=1} ; If ρ α + i 0 ≥ A α + σ ( i 0 ) {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}}\geq A_{\alpha +}^{\sigma (i_{0})}} , stop, ρ α + i 0 {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}}} is the solution; otherwise go to Step 2.1-3. i 0 ← i 0 + 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}\leftarrow i_{0}+1} , go to Step 2.1-2. Step 2.2 To calculate ρ α − i 0 ∗ {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}} Let i 0 = 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}=1} ; If ρ α − i 0 ≥ A α − σ ( i 0 ) {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}}\geq A_{\alpha -}^{\sigma (i_{0})}} , stop, ρ α − i 0 {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}}} is the solution; otherwise go to Step 2.2-3. i 0 ← i 0 + 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}\leftarrow i_{0}+1} , go to step Step 2.2-2. Step 3—To construct the aggregation resulting fuzzy set G {\displaystyle G} based on all the available intervals [ ρ α − i 0 ∗ , ρ α + i 0 ∗ ] {\displaystyle \left[{\rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }},\;\rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}}\right]} : μ G ( x ) = ⋁ α : x ∈ [ ρ α − i 0 ∗ , ρ α + i 0 ∗ ] ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\operatorname {\bigvee } \limits _{\alpha :x\in \left[{\rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }},\;\rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}}\right]}\alpha } == Some Examples == The type-1 OWA operator with the weights shown in the top figure is used to aggregate the fuzzy sets (solide lines) in the bottom figure, and the dashed line is the aggregation result. == Special cases == Any OWA operators, like maximum, minimum, mean operators; Join operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets, i.e., fuzzy maximum operators; Meet operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets, i.e., fuzzy minimum operators; Join-like operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets; Meet-like operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets. == Generalizations == Type-2 OWA operators have been suggested to aggregate the type-2 fuzzy sets for soft decision making. == Applications == Type-1 OWA operators have been applied to different domains for soft decision making. Improved efficiency of computing approach ; Type reduction of type-2 fuzzy sets ; Group decision making ; Credit risk evaluation ; Information fusion ; Linguistic expressions and symbolic translation ; Sentiment analysis ; Ro

  Read more →
• 

  Argument technology

  Argument technology is a sub-field of collective intelligence and artificial intelligence that focuses on applying computational techniques to the creation, identification, analysis, navigation, evaluation and visualisation of arguments and debates. In the 1980s and 1990s, philosophical theories of arguments in general, and argumentation theory in particular, were leveraged to handle key computational challenges, such as modeling non-monotonic and defeasible reasoning and designing robust coordination protocols for multi-agent systems. At the same time, mechanisms for computing semantics of Argumentation frameworks were introduced as a way of providing a calculus of opposition for computing what it is reasonable to believe in the context of conflicting arguments. With these foundations in place, the area was kick-started by a workshop held in the Scottish Highlands in 2000, the result of which was a book coauthored by philosophers of argument, rhetoricians, legal scholars and AI researchers. Since then, the area has been supported by various dedicated events such as the International Workshop on Computational Models of Natural Argument (CMNA) which has run annually since 2001; the International Workshop on Argument in Multi Agent Systems (ArgMAS) annually since 2004; the Workshop on Argument Mining, annually since 2014, and the Conference on Computational Models of Argument (COMMA), biennially since 2006. Since 2010, the field has also had its own journal, Argument & Computation, which was published by Taylor & Francis until 2016 and since then by IOS Press. One of the challenges that argument technology faced was a lack of standardisation in the representation and underlying conception of argument in machine readable terms. Many different software tools for manual argument analysis, in particular, developed idiosyncratic and ad hoc ways of representing arguments which reflected differing underlying ways of conceiving of argumentative structure. This lack of standardisation also meant that there was no interchange between tools or between research projects, and little re-use of data resources that were often expensive to create. To tackle this problem, the Argument Interchange Format set out to establish a common standard that captured the minimal common features of argumentation which could then be extended in different settings. Since about 2018, argument technology has been growing rapidly, with, for example, IBM's Grand Challenge, Project Debater, results for which were published in Nature in March 2021; German research funder, DFG's nationwide research programme on Robust Argumentation Machines, RATIO, begun in 2019; and UK nationwide deployment of The Evidence Toolkit by the BBC in 2019. A 2021 video narrated by Stephen Fry provides a summary of the societal motivations for work in argument technology. Argument technology has applications in a variety of domains, including education, healthcare, policy making, political science, intelligence analysis and risk management and has a variety of sub-fields, methodologies and technologies. == Technologies == === Argument assistant === An argument assistant is a software tool which support users when writing arguments. Argument assistants can help users compose content, review content from one other, including in dialogical contexts. In addition to Web services, such functionalities can be provided through the plugin architectures of word processor software or those of Web browsers. Internet forums, for instance, can be greatly enhanced by such software tools and services. === Argument blogging === ArguBlogging is software which allows its users to select portions of hypertext on webpages in their Web browsers and to agree or disagree with the selected content, posting their arguments to their blogs with linked argument data. It is implemented as a bookmarklet, adding functionality to Web browsers and interoperating with blogging platforms such as Blogger and Tumblr. === Argument mapping === Argument maps are visual, diagrammatic representations of arguments. Such visual diagrams facilitate diagrammatic reasoning and promote one's ability to grasp and to make sense of information rapidly and readily. Argument maps can provide structured, semi-formal frameworks for representing arguments using interactive visual language. One avenue of research and development is the design of online platforms to leverage collective intelligence to populate such maps and to integrate data, optimize and assess arguments. === Argument mining === Argument mining, or argumentation mining, is a research area within the natural language processing field. The goal of argument mining is the automatic extraction and identification of argumentative structures from natural language text with the aid of computer programs. === Argument search === An argument search engine is a search engine that is given a topic as a user query and returns a list of arguments for and against the topic or about that topic. Such engines could be used to support informed decision-making or to help debaters prepare for debates. === Automated argumentative essay scoring === The goal of automated argumentative essay scoring systems is to assist students in improving their writing skills by measuring the quality of their argumentative content. === Debate technology === Debate technology focuses on human-machine interaction and in particular providing systems that support, monitor and engage in debate. One of the most high-profile examples of debating technology is IBM's Project Debater which combines scripted communication with very large-scale processing of news articles to identify and construct arguments on the fly in a competitive debating setting. Debating technology also encompasses tools aimed at providing insight into debates, typically using techniques from data science. These analytics have been developed in both academic and commercial settings. === Decision support system === Argument technology can reduce both individual and group biases and facilitate more accurate decisions. Argument-based decision support systems do so by helping users to distinguish between claims and the evidence supporting them, and express their confidence in and evaluate the strength of evidence of competing claims. They have been used to improve predictions of housing market trends, risk analysis, ethical and legal decision making. ==== Ethical decision support system ==== An ethical decision support system is a decision support system which supports users in moral reasoning and decision-making. ==== Legal decision support system ==== A legal decision support system is a decision support system which supports users in legal reasoning and decision-making. === Explainable artificial intelligence === An explainable or transparent artificial intelligence system is an artificial intelligence system whose actions can be easily understood by humans. === Intelligent tutoring system === An intelligent tutoring system is a computer system that aims to provide immediate and customized instruction or feedback to learners, usually without requiring intervention from a human teacher. The intersection of argument technology and intelligent tutoring systems includes computer systems which aim to provide instruction in: critical thinking, argumentation, ethics, law, mathematics, and philosophy. === Legal expert system === A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. === Machine ethics === Machine ethics is a part of the ethics of artificial intelligence concerned with the moral behavior of artificially intelligent beings. As humans argue with respect to morality and moral behavior, argument can be envisioned as a component of machine ethics systems and moral reasoning components. === Proof assistant === In computer science and mathematical logic, a proof assistant or interactive theorem prover is a software tool to assist with the development of formal proofs by human-machine collaboration. This involves some sort of interactive proof editor, or other interface, with which a human can guide the search for proofs, the details of which are stored in, and some steps provided by, a computer. === Ethical considerations === Ethical considerations of argument technology include privacy, transparency, societal concerns, and diversity in representation. These factors cut across different levels such as technology, user interface design, user, service context, and society. There is concern about unethical misuse for "generating arguments on controversial topics with specific stances and deploying them on social platforms". Another issue may concern the design of conclusion-making algorithms, such as e.g. enabling such to conclude that certain key data is needed instead of only making lists of best-fit conclusions or enabling the generation of multi

  Read more →
• 

  Google Gadgets

  Google Gadgets are dynamic web content that can be embedded on a web page. They can be added to and interact strongly with Google's iGoogle personalized home page (discontinued in November 2013, although iGoogle Gadgets still work on other websites) and the Google Desktop (discontinued in September 2011) application, as well as Google Wave (also no longer supported by Google) and Google Sites. Webmasters can add and customize a gadget to their own business or personal web site, a process called "syndication". Gadgets are developed by Google and third-party developers using the Google Gadgets API, using basic web technologies such as XML and JavaScript. == Multi-user persistent - Wave Gadgets == With the advent of Google Wave (now Apache Wave), gadgets became able to have persistent storage and multi-user capabilities and better state management. Gadgets using Google Wave in this way were simply known as 'Wave Gadgets'. For instance, a game written using a Google Gadget could use Google Wave technology to record a list of users and high scores without having to worry about how to permanently store the scores on a hosted server. The use of Google Wave would give the gadget multi-user and permanent storage capabilities. For example, scores could be stored in a Google Wave hosted permanently by Google at no cost to the user. As of early 2013, Google Gadgets were deprecated in Google Spreadsheets. Shortly after, they were removed from all spreadsheets. == Technology == Google Gadgets are written in XML and can have HTML and JavaScript components, and were able to use Google Wave. Here is an example of a Hello World program written using Google Gadget technology. Google Gadgets API is a Google API which allows developers to create Google Gadgets easily.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Snake Oil

  AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference is a 2024 non-fiction book written by scholars Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor. It is a critique of the tech industry's overly inflated promises and capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) as well as a debunking of the flawed science fueling AI hype while attempting to outline both the potential positives and negatives that come with different modes of the technology. == Contents == === Publication === The book was published in September 2024 by the Princeton University Press. AI Snake Oil consists of 360 pages and features eight chapters, and sections for acknowledgements, references, and an index. An updated edition with a new preface and epilogue by the authors was published in September 2025. The authors use the term "AI snake oil" derived from the U.S. idiom for a fraudulent remedy, to describe overhyped AI systems. === Chapter one: Introduction === Narayanan and Kapoor argue that many individuals do not yet have the literacy to detect functioning aspects of AI compared to potential snake oil, which they identify as "AI that does not and cannot work as advertised". Some of the major examples utilized by the authors include Allstate's 2013 use of predictive AI, as well as the concern surrounding actors and AI attempting to replicate or use their likeness. Important discussions regarding discrimination are brought up and explored in the first chapter, including the false arrests of six Black individuals due to errors with AI facial recognition tools. The chapter concludes with a comparison to the Industrial Revolution, where Narayanan and Kapoor highlight the extensive human labour that is necessary for artificial intelligence technologies to function. === Chapter two: How Predictive AI Goes Wrong === Chapter two focuses on predictive artificial intelligence, and criticizes the overestimation of the capabilities of the technology. === Chapter three: Why Can't AI Predict the Future? === Chapter three works to inform the reader about the history of early computational prediction attempts, with examples from companies like Simulatics. === Chapter four: The Long Road to Generative AI === The fourth chapter goes in more in-depth in explorations of generative AI. Generative AI software examples include ChatGPT, Midjourney, and DALL-E. The section begins with a positive example of generative AI. As the chapter progresses, the authors begin to provide examples of harm produced by generative AI, including the suicide of a Belgian man after connecting with Chai, a generative chatbot. Issues of deepfakes and preservation of artistic property are also discussed. The use of generative AI to create non-consensual pornographic deepfake content is discussed in relation to female celebrities. === Chapter five: Is Advanced AI an Existential Threat? === The fifth chapter draws attention the AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. The authors describe AGI as "AI that can perform most or economically relevant tasks as effectively as any human". They summarize that many contributors to the field of artificial intelligence believe AGI to be an impending threat that demands attention. However, they argue that the perceived threat of AGI would only exist if the technology continually functioned reliably. In order to better illustrate the hype surrounding AGI, Narayanan and Kapoor use the Ladder of Generality, which is described as a visual tool in which "each rung represents a way of computing that is more flexible, and more general, than the previous one". They note that we are not yet aware of the next rungs on the ladder, or if the ladder will eventually result in a dead end. The rungs that have been identified so far are as follows: (0, or floor) special purpose hardware, (1) programmable computers, (2) stored program computers, (3) machine learning, (4) deep learning, (5) pretrained models, and, finally, (6) instruction-tuned models. The potential for future rungs and what those rungs might be are currently undetermined. The chapter also discusses the ELIZA effect, which Lawrence Switzky discusses in his article "ELIZA Effects". Switzky attributes the coined term ELIZA Effect to Sherry Turke, who defined it as "our more general tendency to treat responsive computer programs as more intelligent than they really are". === Chapter six: Why Can't AI Fix Social Media? === The sixth chapter focuses on content moderation, why it is important, and how it has been and could be affected by artificial automation. The first issue raised in regard to AI-driven content moderation is the inability for computers and machines to understand context and nuance, resulting in potential for discriminatory moderation and shadow banning. While they note that there are issues with automating content moderation, Narayanan and Kapoor also highlight the psychological impact on human content moderators and their labour. They indicate the hidden labour behind moderation, which is often outsourced to less developed countries, where labourers sort through potentially traumatizing content for pay. However, the discussion focuses more heavily on why automated moderation can be problematic, including discriminatory algorithms and lack of nuance. To balance their argument, issues of discrimination and bias are also discussed in relation the human content moderators. To automate moderation, there are two types of AI used, which are fingerprint matching and machine learning. === Chapter seven: Why Do Myths about AI Persist? === The seventh chapter outlines possible factors that contribute to hype surrounding AI. Narayanan and Kapoor explain how companies often promote their new AI models without properly disclosing how the model works, and what it is learning from. They attribute hype to several different groups, including journalists, researchers, and companies. They explain the impact of companies and the misplaced hype that they spread can be attributed to greed and a desire to grow corporate funds. For journalists, one of the stated sources of hype, they argue that news media has a tendency to prioritize financial incentives over validity and quality of writing. As well, Narayanan and Kapoor point out the emergence of company statement regurgitation in news media, leading to clickbait. Hype from researchers is potentially linked to lack of reproducibility in studies as well as leakage, which occurs when AI models are tested on their training data. === Chapter eight: Where do we go from here? === The final chapter, chapter eight, turns its attention to the future. The authors express their ideas and predictions for how the technology will evolve and be utilized in the upcoming years. == Authors == Author Narayanan is a computer science professor at Princeton University. Kapoor is a doctoral candidate at the same university, and both scholars are located at the Center for Information Technology at Princeton. In 2023, Narayanan and Kapoor appeared on the TIME100 Artificial Intelligence list, which features influential figures in the field. == Reception == Nature, a science and technology peer-reviewed journal, released an article highlighting the top "10 essential reads from the past year", listing Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor's AI Snake Oil. The article states the that text is "one of the best on this controversial subject". Elizabeth Quill, in her review of the text in Science News, writes that the authors "squarely achieve their stated goal: to empower people to distinguish AI that works well from AI snake oil". Joshua Rothman of The New Yorker writes that "compared with many technologists, Narayanan, Kapoor, and Vallor [Shannon Vallor, University of Edinburgh], are deeply skeptical about today's A.I. technology and what it can achieve. Perhaps they shouldn't be". Rothman argues, following an interview with prominent computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton of University of Toronto, that the potential for AI to replicate complexity is already here and continues to be heavily funded, enhancing the prospective capabilities of the technology. However, he does praise the author's ability to address questions regarding the existential human experience. Alexya Martinez discusses the text in a book review for Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, critiquing AI Snake Oil for its extensive focus on the West. Martinez writes that Narayanan and Kapoor "do not fully explore how AI impacts other countries", and suggests more focus on countries outside of the United States to enhance their argument.

  Read more →
• 

  Oxa

  Oxa (formerly Oxbotica) is an autonomous vehicle software company, headquartered in Oxfordshire, England, and founded by Paul Newman and Ingmar Posner. == History == In 2013, Newman and Posner led the RobotCar UK project as part of Oxford University's Department of Engineering Science Mobile Robotics Group. RobotCar became the first autonomous vehicle on UK roads. In 2014, the pair used the newly developed technology to found Oxbotica. Oxbotica has raised over $18 million to date and is backed by the IP Group, Parkwalk Advisors and AXA XL. In 2018, Uber's former EMEA business head, Fraser Robinson, was appointed to the board of directors. In May 2019, Ozgur Tohumcu replaced Dr Graeme Smith as Oxbotica's CEO. Also in 2019, the company opened an office in Toronto, Canada. In January 2021, Oxbotica announced it had raised $47 million in a Series B round. In August 2021, the company achieved a safety landmark as the first company to have its autonomy safety case assessed by BSI (British Standards Institution) against the requirements of the UK Code of Practice 2019, PAS 1881:2020 and PAS 1883:2020, certifying the safety conformity of its autonomous vehicle trials and testing. The assessment was completed as part of Project Endeavour, the UK's first multi-city demonstration of autonomous vehicle services and capability. In December 2021, Gavin Jackson was named CEO. In January 2023, the company raised $140 million in a Series C round. In May 2023, the company changed its name to Oxa. Oxa raised $103 million (£77 million) in March 2026, including $50 million from the UK National Wealth Fund. Nvidia's venture capital division, NVentures, also invested in the Series D funding round, along with existing Oxa shareholders IP Group, Australian pension fund Hostplus, and BP Ventures, a division of the UK oil company. == Technology == Oxa designs software and hardware for the conversion of industrial vehicles into autonomous ones. Its full stack, end-to-end Universal Autonomy software is both vehicle and platform-agnostic, with no dependence on external infrastructure such as GPS. It can be deployed in any environment and on any terrain. In addition to underground uses, the technology is also useful in natural canyons and forests, where GPS signals are weak or non-existent, but also in "urban canyons" — cities with tall buildings that obstruct GPS signals for proper navigation. == Public deployments == The LUTZ Pathfinder pod had its first public demonstration in February 2015 in Milton Keynes. The Government-funded project was designed to ensure that autonomous vehicles would comply with the Highway Code. The pod featured autonomous control software from Oxbotica, including 19 sensors, cameras, radar and Lidar. As part of the GATEway Project in 2017, Oxbotica trialled seven autonomous shuttle buses in Greenwich, navigating a two-mile riverside path near London's O2 Arena on a route that is also used by pedestrians and cyclists. Oxbotica ran the UK's first trial of autonomous grocery deliveries that year, with British online supermarket Ocado in London, as the next step in the GATEway Project. In 2018, Oxbotica deployed its autonomous vehicle software at London's Gatwick Airport, which subsequently became the first airport in the world to trial an autonomous shuttle service. The electric-powered vehicles transported staff via airside roads between the airport's North and South terminals. An airside trial of Oxbotica's autonomous driving technology was then successfully completed at Heathrow Airport in partnership with IAG Cargo, the first airside trial of an autonomous vehicle at a UK airport. The Oxbotica-designed CargoPod ran autonomously along a cargo route around the airside perimeter for three weeks. As part of the UK Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles-funded DRIVEN project, Oxbotica is developing and deploying a fleet of Ford Fusion autonomous vehicles running in both London and Oxford on public roads, and in conjunction with its consortium partners, running real-time insurance. AXA XL is partnering with Oxbotica on the development of smart insurance products using Oxbotica's autonomy technology to improve road safety. In 2018, Oxbotica announced a partnership with London private taxi firm Addison Lee to develop and deploy autonomous taxis in the city of London by 2021. A 3D street mapping exercise was conducted in London's Canary Wharf. In 2019, Oxbotica deployed a fleet of their autonomous technology within Ford Mondeo cars on public roads in Stratford, London to test their use in city environments. The £13.2 million project is in collaboration with The DRIVEN Project to develop self-driving cars. == Awards == 2019 Royal Academy of Engineering Silver Medal - Paul Newman 2017 Financial Times ArcelorMittal Boldness in Business Award Barclays Award for Innovation 2016 Frost & Sullivan Award, Technology Leadership for Autonomous Driving Software

  Read more →
• 

  International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling

  The International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS) is a leading international academic conference in automated planning and scheduling held annually for researchers and practitioners in planning and scheduling. ICAPS is supported by the National Science Foundation, the journal Artificial Intelligence, and other supporters. == The IPC and PDDL == ICAPS conducts the International Planning Competition (IPC), a competition scheduled every few years that empirically evaluates state-of-the-art planning systems on a collection of benchmark problems. The Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL) was developed mainly to make the 1998/2000 International Planning Competition possible, and then evolved with each competition. PDDL is an attempt to standardize Artificial Intelligence (AI) planning languages. PDDL was first developed by Drew McDermott and his colleagues in 1998, inspired by STRIPS, ADL, and other sources. == History == The ICAPS conferences began in 2003 as a merge of two bi-annual conferences, the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Planning and Scheduling (AIPS) and the European Conference on Planning (ECP). == List of events ==

  Read more →
• 

  Georges Giralt PhD Award

  The Georges Giralt PhD Award is a European scientific prize for extraordinary contributions to robotics. It is awarded yearly at the European Robotics Forum by euRobotics AISBL, a non-profit organisation based in Brussels with the objective of turning robotics beneficial for Europe’s economy and society. Georges Giralt received his PhD in 1958, from Paul Sabatier University, in the domain of electrical machines, and soon afterwards became a pioneer in robotics, in Europe and worldwide. He was especially instrumental in bringing in scientific foundations and methodology when the domain was still young, and a loose coupling of mechanical and electrical engineering, adopting the early results of automatic control. The high reputation of the Georges Giralt PhD Award is based on the prominent role of the awarding institution euRobotics. With more than 250 member organisations, euRobotics represents the academic and industrial robotics community in Europe. Moreover, it provides the European robotics community with a legal entity to engage in a public/private partnership with the European Commission. The award is covered by various media. Entitled for participation in the Georges Giralt PhD Award are all robotics-related dissertations which have been successfully defended at a European university. The US-American counterpart is the Dick Volz Award. == Award winners == 2026: Antonio González Morgado 2025: Erfan Shahriari 2024: Manuel Keppler 2023: Antonio Andriella, Ribin Balachandran 2022: Antonio Loquercio, Michael Lutter 2021: Giuseppe Averta, Bernd Henze 2020: Cosimo Della Santina 2019: Grazioso Stanislao, Teodor Tomic 2018: Frank Bonnet, Daniel Leidner 2017: Johannes Englsberger 2016: Alexander Dietrich, Mark Müller 2015: Jörg Stückler 2014: Manuel Catalano, Fabien Expert, Rainer Jaekel 2013: Jens Kober 2012: Sami Haddadin 2011: Mario Pratts 2010: Ludovic Righetti 2009: Alejandro-Dizan Vasquez-Govea 2008: Cyrill Stachniss, Eduardo Rocon 2007: Pierre Lamon 2006: Martijn Wisse 2005: Juan Andrade Cetto 2004: Gilles Duchemin 2003: Ralf Koeppe 2002: Gianluca Antonelli, Jens-Steffen Gutmann

  Read more →
• 

  Question (short story)

  "Question" is a science fiction short story by American writer Isaac Asimov. The story first appeared in the March 1955 issue of Computers and Automation (thought to be the first computer magazine), and was reprinted in the April 30, 1957, issue of Science World. It is the first of a loosely connected series of stories concerning a fictional supercomputer called Multivac. The story concerns two technicians who are servicing Multivac, and their argument over whether or not the machine is truly intelligent and able to think. Multivac, however, supplies the answer on its own. After the reprint, another author, Robert Sherman Townes, noticed the climax in the last sentence was very similar to one of his own stories, "Problem for Emmy" (Startling Stories, June 1952), and wrote to Asimov about it. After searching in his library, Asimov did find the original story and, although he did not recall having read it, admitted that the endings were pretty similar. He then replied to Townes, apologizing and promising the story would never again be published, and it never was. Asimov mentioned "Question" in an editorial called "Plagiarism" which appeared in the August 1985 issue of Asimov's Science Fiction (although he did not mention Townes' name or the title of either story). "Plagiarism" was reprinted in Asimov's collection Gold (1995).

  Read more →
• 

  Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services

  The Interim Measures for the Management of Generative AI Services (Chinese: 生成式人工智能服务管理暂行办法; pinyin: Shēngchéng shì réngōng zhìnéng fúwù guǎnlǐ zànxíng bànfǎ) are a set of regulations governing public-facing generative artificial intelligence services in China. Issued on 10 July 2023 and effective from 15 August 2023, they were China's first binding regulation specifically targeting generative AI. They have been described as among the earliest such regulations adopted by any country. The measures were jointly issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and six other national bodies: the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security, and the National Radio and Television Administration. Among the measures' most prominent requirements is that generative AI services must uphold Core Socialist Values and must not generate content that could subvert state power, harm national security, or undermine social stability. The measures also require providers of public-facing generative AI services to undergo security assessments and register their algorithms with the CAC. As of December 2025, 748 generative AI services had completed the filing process at the national level. == Background == The Interim Measures build on two earlier sets of regulations targeting specific algorithm applications. The Administrative Provisions on Algorithm Recommendation for Internet Information Services, effective from March 2022, established China's algorithm registry and required providers of recommendation algorithms with "public opinion properties or social mobilization capabilities" to file with the CAC and undergo security assessments. The Administrative Provisions on Deep Synthesis of Internet Information Services, effective from January 2023, extended similar requirements to algorithms used for generating synthetic media such as deepfakes. In April 2023, the CAC released a draft of the generative AI regulation for public comment. The draft included several requirements that attracted attention, including that generated content should "embody Core Socialist Values" and that training data should be "true and accurate". The public consultation period ran until May 2023. The final version, published in July 2023, was substantially revised from the draft. According to an analysis by the Future of Privacy Forum, changes appeared to reflect feedback from industry stakeholders including Baidu, Xiaomi, SenseTime, and others, as well as input from government-affiliated research institutes. The final measures adopted a more permissive tone, with the CAC describing its approach as "inclusive and prudent" (包容审慎) and emphasising "classified and graded" (分类分级) supervision. == Scope == The measures apply to services that use generative AI technology to provide text, images, audio, video, or other content to the public within mainland China (Article 2). They do not apply to organisations that develop or use generative AI internally without offering services to the domestic public, such as industry associations, enterprises, and research institutions. Overseas providers whose services are accessible to users in China are also subject to the measures. == Key provisions == === Content requirements === Article 4 sets out the core content obligations. Providers and users of generative AI services must uphold the Core Socialist Values. The measures prohibit generating content that incites subversion of national sovereignty or the socialist system, endangers national security or the nation's image, incites separatism, promotes terrorism or extremism, promotes ethnic hatred or discrimination, or contains violence, obscenity, or false information prohibited by law. These content prohibitions largely mirror those in Article 12 of the Cybersecurity Law and in prior regulations governing online content. Article 4 also requires that models be designed and trained to avoid discrimination, that services respect intellectual property rights, and that providers take effective measures to improve the transparency and accuracy of generated content. === Training data and labelling === Article 7 requires providers to ensure that training data is of high quality and legitimately sourced, and that it does not infringe upon intellectual property rights. Where personal information is used, consent must be obtained. The final version of this provision removed language from the draft that would have held providers responsible for the "legitimacy" of all pretraining data, replacing it with a requirement to "employ effective measures to improve the quality of training data". Article 8 requires providers to establish labelling rules for training data and to conduct quality assessments of data annotations. Article 12 requires that generated images, videos, and other synthetic content be labelled as AI-generated. === User rights and privacy === Article 11 requires providers to protect user privacy, to minimise the collection and retention of personal data, and to refrain from unlawfully sharing user information. Users have the right to request review, correction, or deletion of their personal information. Article 10 requires providers to take measures to prevent excessive dependence on or addiction to generative AI services by minors. === Security assessment and algorithm filing === Article 17 requires that providers of generative AI services with "public opinion properties or the capacity for social mobilization" (具有舆论属性或者社会动员能力) carry out security assessments and complete algorithm filing procedures in accordance with the Administrative Provisions on Algorithm Recommendation for Internet Information Services. == Implementation == === Algorithm filing process === In practice, the filing requirements under the Interim Measures have developed into a two-tier process. The first tier is the standard algorithm filing (算法备案) under the pre-existing Algorithm Recommendation Provisions, which involves submitting information about an algorithm's design, purpose, and data sources to the CAC. This process is primarily a registration mechanism. For public-facing generative AI products, there is an additional, more rigorous process commonly referred to as the "large model filing" (大模型备案). This involves submitting a security self-assessment report, data annotation rules, a keyword blocking list, and evaluation test question sets. The process includes technical testing at the provincial level, followed by review at the national CAC level. The algorithm filing targets specific algorithms, while the large model filing evaluates the broader system architecture, training data, model parameters, and potential social impact. The CAC publishes lists of generative AI services that have successfully completed the filing process. The first such list was published on 2 April 2024. According to the CAC's year-end announcements, 302 generative AI services had completed national-level filing by the end of 2024 (of which 238 were new that year), alongside 105 applications that completed local-level registration. By the end of 2025, the cumulative total had risen to 748 national-level filings and 435 local-level registrations. === Content compliance and testing === According to the Carnegie Endowment, the CAC has conducted compliance audits of generative AI services with a particular focus on ensuring appropriate responses to queries about politically sensitive topics. The large model filing process requires providers to pass both provincial-level and national-level technical testing before their services can be made available to the public. On 1 March 2024, the National Technical Committee 260 on Cybersecurity (TC260) published TC260-003, the Basic Security Requirements for Generative AI Services (生成式人工智能服务安全基本要求), a technical standard that provides detailed guidance on the security assessments required under the Interim Measures. The standard covers requirements for training data safety, model security, and content safety evaluation, and is used as a reference for the filing process. == Analysis == === Relationship to broader Chinese internet regulation === The content requirements in the Interim Measures extend China's existing framework for online information control to generative AI. Legal scholars have noted that the "Core Socialist Values" provision and the specific content prohibitions are consistent with longstanding requirements imposed on internet platforms under the Cybersecurity Law and related regulations. The Asia Society Policy Institute has described the Chinese government's highest regulatory priority in this area as retaining control of information, noting that content-related obligations receive stricter enforcement than other provisions. === Nature of the filing system === The character of the filing system has been debated by scholars. Angela Huyue Zh

  Read more →
• 

  Emma Hart (computer scientist)

  Professor Emma Hart, FRSE (born 1967) is an English computer scientist known for her work in artificial immune systems (AIS), evolutionary computation and optimisation. She is a professor of computational intelligence at Edinburgh Napier University, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Evolutionary Computation (MIT Press), and D. Coordinator of the Future & Emerging Technologies (FET) Proactive Initiative, Fundamentals of Collective Adaptive Systems. == Early life and education == Hart was born in Middlesbrough, England in 1967. In 1990 she graduated from the University of Oxford with a first class BA(Hons) in Chemistry. She then continued her studies at the University of Edinburgh, graduating with an MSc in Artificial Intelligence in 1994, followed by a PhD that explored the use of immunology as an inspiration for computing, examining a range of techniques applied to optimization and data classification problems. Her dissertation was titled Immunology as a metaphor for computational information processing: Fact or fiction?, and her doctoral advisor was Peter Ross. == Career == In 2000 Hart took a position as a lecturer at Edinburgh Napier University, and was promoted to a Reader, Professor, and in 2008 Chair in Natural Computation. She is now director of the Centre of Algorithms, Visualisation and Evolving Systems (CAVES) group in the School of Computing. She continues to research in the area of developing novel bio-inspired techniques for solving a range of real-world optimisation and classification problems, as well as exploring the fundamental properties of immune-inspired computing through modelling and simulation. She is also involved in editorial activity and currently occupies the position of Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Evolutionary Computation (MIT Press). Her interests lie in the area of bio-inspired computing, in particular artificial immune systems (AIS). She also undertakes research in three main areas: optimisation, self-organising/self-adaptive systems, and artificial intelligence. Hart is D. Coordinator of Fundamentals of Collective Adaptive Systems (FoCAS), a Future and Emerging Technologies Proactive Initiative funded by the European Commission under FP7. == Selected works == === Conference talks === Hart, Emma. "Lifelong learning in optimization (video)". 28th European Conference on Operational Research. The Association of European Operational Research Societies. Hart, Emma (December 2021). "Self-assembling robots and the potential of artificial evolution". TED talk 2021. === Journal articles === "An immune system approach to scheduling in changing environments". E.Hart, P.Ross. 1999. Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation (2), 1559–1566. "Exploiting the analogy between immunology and sparse distributed memories: A system for clustering non-stationary data". E.Hart, P.Ross. 2002. 1st International Conference on Artificial Immune Systems. "Evolutionary scheduling: A review". E Hart, P Ross, D Corne. 2005. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines 6(2), 191–220. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10710-005-7580-7 "Application areas of AIS: The past, the present and the future". E.Hart, J.Timmis. 2008. Applied soft computing 8(1), 191–201. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2006.12.004 "Structure versus function: a topological perspective on immune networks". E.Hart, H.Bersini, F.Santos. 2010. Natural computing 9(3), 603–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11047-009-9138-8 "On the life-long learning capabilities of a nelli: A hyper-heuristic optimisation system". E.Hart, K.Sim. 2014. International Conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature, 282–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10762-2_28 "A hyper-heuristic ensemble method for static job-shop scheduling". E.Hart, K.Sim. 2016. Evolutionary computation 24(4), 609-635. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1162/EVCO_a_00183 == Awards and recognition == 2016, Featured article on Lifelong Learning in Optimisation, IFORS newsletter 2016, "A Combined Generative and Selective Hyper-heuristic for the Vehicle Routing Problem" presented at GECCO 2016 (Denver, USA), ACM 2016, "A Hybrid Parameter Control Approach Applied to a Diversity-based Multi-objective Memetic Algorithm for Frequency Assignment Problems" presented at WCCI 2016 (Vancouver, Canada), IEEE 2017, Keynote Speaker, 2017 International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence 2018, Bronze Award in International Human-Competitive Awards (Humies), International Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation, Kyoto Japan 2018, Nomination for best paper award, GECCO 18, Kyoto, Japan 2022, Elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh

  Read more →
• 

  Desktop Window Manager

  Desktop Window Manager (DWM, previously Desktop Compositing Engine or DCE in builds of pre-reset Windows Longhorn) is the compositing window manager in Microsoft Windows since Windows Vista that enables the use of hardware acceleration to render the graphical user interface of Windows. It was originally created to enable portions of the new "Windows Aero" user experience, which allowed for effects such as transparency, 3D window switching and more. It is also included with Windows Server 2008, but requires the "Desktop Experience" feature and compatible graphics drivers to be installed. == Architecture == The Desktop Window Manager is a compositing window manager, meaning that each program has a buffer that it writes data to; DWM then composites each program's buffer into a final image. By comparison, the stacking window manager in Windows XP and earlier (and also Windows Vista and Windows 7 with Windows Aero disabled) comprises a single display buffer to which all programs write. DWM works in different ways depending on the operating system (Windows 7 or Windows Vista) and on the version of the graphics drivers it uses (WDDM 1.0 or 1.1). Under Windows 7 and with WDDM 1.1 drivers, DWM only writes the program's buffer to the video RAM, even if it is a graphics device interface (GDI) program. This is because Windows 7 supports (limited) hardware acceleration for GDI and in doing so does not need to keep a copy of the buffer in system RAM so that the CPU can write to it. Because the compositor has access to the graphics of all applications, it easily allows visual effects that string together visuals from multiple applications, such as transparency. DWM uses DirectX to perform the function of compositing and rendering in the GPU, freeing the CPU of the task of managing the rendering from the off-screen buffers to the display. However, it does not affect applications painting to the off-screen buffers – depending on the technologies used for that, this might still be CPU-bound. DWM-agnostic rendering techniques like GDI are redirected to the buffers by rendering the user interface (UI) as bitmaps. DWM-aware rendering technologies like WPF directly make the internal data structures available in a DWM-compatible format. The window contents in the buffers are then converted to DirectX textures. The desktop itself is a full-screen Direct3D surface, with windows being represented as a mesh consisting of two adjacent (and mutually inverted) triangles, which are transformed to represent a 2D rectangle. The texture, representing the UI chrome, is then mapped onto these rectangles. Window transitions are implemented as transformations of the meshes, using shader programs. With Windows Vista, the transitions are limited to the set of built-in shaders that implement the transformations. Greg Schechter, a developer at Microsoft has suggested that this might be opened up for developers and users to plug in their own effects in a future release. DWM only maps the primary desktop object as a 3D surface; other desktop objects, including virtual desktops as well as the secure desktop used by User Account Control are not. Because all applications render to an off-screen buffer, they can be read off the buffer embedded in other applications as well. Since the off-screen buffer is constantly updated by the application, the embedded rendering will be a dynamic representation of the application window and not a static rendering. This is how the live thumbnail previews and Windows Flip work in Windows Vista and Windows 7. DWM exposes a public API that allows applications to access these thumbnail representations. The size of the thumbnail is not fixed; applications can request the thumbnails at any size - smaller than the original window, at the same size or even larger - and DWM will scale them properly before returning. Aero Flip does not use the public thumbnail APIs as they do not allow for directly accessing the Direct3D textures. Instead, Aero Flip is implemented directly in the DWM engine. The Desktop Window Manager uses Media Integration Layer (MIL), the unmanaged compositor which it shares with Windows Presentation Foundation, to represent the windows as composition nodes in a composition tree. The composition tree represents the desktop and all the windows hosted in it, which are then rendered by MIL from the back of the scene to the front. Since all the windows contribute to the final image, the color of a resultant pixel can be decided by more than one window. This is used to implement effects such as per-pixel transparency. DWM allows custom shaders to be invoked to control how pixels from multiple applications are used to create the displayed pixel. The DWM includes built-in Pixel Shader 2.0 programs which compute the color of a pixel in a window by averaging the color of the pixel as determined by the window behind it and its neighboring pixels. These shaders are used by DWM to achieve the blur effect in the window borders of windows managed by DWM, and optionally for the areas where it is requested by the application. Since MIL provides a retained mode graphics system by caching the composition trees, the job of repainting and refreshing the screen when windows are moved is handled by DWM and MIL, freeing the application of the responsibility. The background data is already in the composition tree and the off-screen buffers and is directly used to render the background. In pre-Vista Windows OSs, background applications had to be requested to re-render themselves by sending them the WM_PAINT message. DWM uses double-buffered graphics to prevent flickering and tearing when moving windows. The compositing engine uses optimizations such as culling to improve performance, as well as not redrawing areas that have not changed. Because the compositor is multi-monitor aware, DWM natively supports this too. During full-screen applications, such as games, DWM does not perform window compositing and therefore performance will not appreciably decrease. On Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012, DWM is used at all times and cannot be disabled, due to the new "start screen experience" implemented. Since the DWM process is usually required to run at all times on Windows 8, users experiencing an issue with the process are seeing memory usage decrease after a system reboot. This is often the first step in a long list of troubleshooting tasks that can help. It is possible to prevent DWM from restarting temporarily in Windows 8, which causes the desktop to turn black, the taskbar grey, and break the start screen/modern apps, but desktop apps will continue to function and appear just like Windows 7 and Vista's Basic theme, based on the single-buffer renderer used by XP. They also use Windows 8's centered title bar, visible within Windows PreInstallation Environment. Starting up Windows without DWM will not work because the default lock screen requires DWM unlike the fallback lockscreen that appears as a command line interface program when Windows.UI.Logon.dll isn't present on Windows versions such as 1507 and later, so it can only be done on the fly, and does not have any practical purposes. Starting with Windows 10, disabling DWM in such a way will cause the entire compositing engine to break, even traditional desktop apps, due to Universal App implementations in the taskbar and new start menu. Windows can still be partially usable without the presence of DWM but requires Sihost.exe to not be present due to it relying on DWM. Most of the applications in Windows 11 require DWM to render UI elements and transparency, Windows 11's new task manager requires dwm to render menus unlike the fallback -d version. Unlike its predecessors, Windows 8 supports basic display adapters through Windows Advanced Rasterization Platform (WARP), which uses software rendering and the CPU to render the interface rather than the graphics card. This allows DWM to function without compatible drivers, but not at the same level of performance as with a normal graphics card. DWM on Windows 8 also adds support for stereoscopic 3D. == Redirection == For rendering techniques that are not DWM-aware, output must be redirected to the DWM buffers. With Windows, either GDI or DirectX can be used for rendering. To make these two work with DWM, redirection techniques for both are provided. With GDI, which is the most used UI rendering technique in Microsoft Windows, each application window is notified when it or a part of it comes in view and it is the job of the application to render itself. Without DWM, the rendering rasterizes the UI in a buffer in video memory, from where it is rendered to the screen. Under DWM, GDI calls are redirected to use the Canonical Display Driver (cdd.dll), a software renderer. A buffer equal to the size of the window is allocated in system memory and CDD.DLL outputs to this buffer rather than the video memory. Another buffer is allocated in the video memory to represent t

  Read more →
• 

  The Murderbot Diaries

  The Murderbot Diaries is a science fiction series by American author Martha Wells, published by Tor Books. The series is told from the perspective of the titular cyborg guard, a "SecUnit" owned by a futuristic megacorporation. SecUnits include "governor" modules that control and punish the constructs if they take any actions not approved by the company. The ironically self-named "Murderbot" hacked and disabled the module but pretends to be a normal SecUnit, staving off the boredom of security work by watching media. As it spends more time with a series of caring entities (both humans and artificial intelligences), it develops genuine friendships and emotional connections, which it finds inconvenient. The TV series Murderbot is based on the novels by Martha Wells. == Books == === Setting === In an advanced largely hyper-capitalist space-faring society, travel between star systems is routine due to now-stable wormhole technology. Initially, wormhole travel was unreliable, but has since improved to the point where "lost" colonies are being found. People reside on planets, some of which have been terraformed, or on space habitats which have full life support and artificial gravity. Most people who can afford it have technology that allows them to tap into ubiquitous data feeds supplying all kinds of information, including entertainment. This technology can be worn, or be implanted into the body. Sentient and semi-sentient artificial intelligences perform tasks such as operating starships, mining, controlling habitats, moving cargo, waging corporate warfare, providing physical pleasure and comfort, or security. Most of these purposes are fulfilled by "bots" of varying complexity and intelligence, but the last three are respectively performed by CombatUnits, ComfortUnits, and SecUnits. The characters and narrator of the book call these conscious entities "constructs", but they are functionally cyborgs (cybernetic organisms): part machine, part organic. A significant distinction, however, is that they are manufactured entities, not born and later modified. The Corporation Rim is a profit-oriented, cutthroat part of this society that indulges in espionage, assassination, indentured slavery, and ruthless exploitation of resources. One particular target of the corporations is illegal "alien remnant" exploitation. These remnants are often extremely dangerous to people and machines. The laws are enforced by other corporations. Outside the Corporation Rim are colonies, such as Preservation, that have established their right to exist under various laws that, at least for the time being, the corporations are unwilling to test. Wells noted in 2017 that All Systems Red, Artificial Condition, Rogue Protocol, and Exit Strategy "have an overarching story, with the fourth one bringing the arc to a conclusion". === Story chronology === "Compulsory" All Systems Red Artificial Condition Rogue Protocol Exit Strategy "Rapport" "Home" Fugitive Telemetry Network Effect System Collapse Platform Decay === All Systems Red (2017) === A scientific expedition on an alien planet goes awry when one of its members is attacked by a giant native creature. She is saved by the expedition's SecUnit (Security Unit), a security construct with a mixture of robot and human features. The SecUnit has secretly hacked the governor module allowing it to be controlled by humans and has named itself Murderbot, as it is heavily armed and designed for combat. However, it prefers to spend its time watching space operas and is uncomfortable interacting with humans. The SecUnit has a vested interest in keeping its human clients safe and alive, since it wants to avoid discovery of its autonomy and has an especially grisly expedition on its record. Murderbot soon discovers information regarding hazardous fauna has been deleted from their survey packet of the planet. Further investigation reveals some sections on their maps are missing as well. Meanwhile, the PreservationAux survey team, led by Dr. Mensah, navigate their mixed feelings about the part machine, part human nature of their SecUnit. As members of an egalitarian, independent planet outside of the Corporation Rim, the survey team struggles with the system of indentured servitude (and in many cases de facto slavery) the rim operates under. When they lose contact with the only other known expedition on the planet, the DeltFall Group, Mensah leads a team to the opposite side of the planet to investigate. At the DeltFall habitat, Murderbot discovers everyone there has been brutally murdered, and one of their three SecUnits has been destroyed. Murderbot disables the remaining two as they attack it but is surprised when two additional SecUnits appear. Murderbot destroys one, and Mensah takes the other. During these encounters, Murderbot is seriously injured. It also realizes one of the rogue SecUnits has installed a combat override module into its neck. The Preservation scientists are able to remove it before it completes the data upload which would put Murderbot under the control of whoever has command over the other SecUnits. The team discovers Murderbot is autonomous, and had once malfunctioned and murdered 57 people. The Preservation scientists mostly agree, based on its protective behavior thus far, the SecUnit can be trusted. Remembering small incidents which appear to be attempted sabotage, Murderbot and the group determine there must be a third expedition on the planet, whose members are trying to eliminate DeltFall and Preservation for some reason. The Preservation scientists confirm their HubSystem has been hacked. They flee their habitat before the mystery expedition they have dubbed EvilSurvey comes to kill them. The EvilSurvey team—GrayCris—leaves a message in the Preservation habitat inviting its scientists to meet at a rendezvous point to negotiate terms for their survival. Murderbot knows GrayCris will never let them live, so the SecUnit formulates a plan. It makes an overture to GrayCris to negotiate for its own freedom, but this is a distraction while the Preservation scientists access the GrayCris HubSystem to activate their emergency beacon. The plan works, but Murderbot is injured protecting Mensah from the explosion of the launch. Later, the SecUnit finds itself repaired retaining its memories and disabled governor module. Mensah has bought its contract, and she plans to bring it back to Preservation's home base where it can legally live autonomously. Though grateful, Murderbot is reluctant to have its decisions made for it, and it slips away on a cargo ship. === Artificial Condition (2018) === Murderbot makes deals with bots piloting unmanned cargo ships to travel toward the mining facility where it once malfunctioned—resulting in the death of 57 people. It hopes to learn more about the initial incident in which it went rogue, of which it has little memory. Murderbot boards the final ship and discovers the bot pilot is an unexpectedly powerful, intrusive artificial intelligence. They come to a tentative truce and watch media together during the final leg of the journey to RaviHyral, the station where the incident occurred. Murderbot learns the ship is a deep-space research vessel assigned to cargo runs during downtime, which explains why the bot pilot is so sophisticated. Murderbot reluctantly allows this artificial intelligence—which it has dubbed ART (Asshole Research Transport) due to its sarcastic personality—to make physical modifications to the SecUnit's body to allow it to pass for an augmented human, and to disconnect the data port at the back of its neck which had been used to insert a combat override module in the previous book. To gain access to the RaviHyral facility, Murderbot takes a contract as a security consultant for three scientists who are meeting with their former employer, the head and namesake of Tlacey Excavations, to negotiate the return of their research, which they believe was illegally seized by the company. Their transport craft is sabotaged, but with ART's help, Murderbot is able to land it safely. Now aware Tlacey is actively trying to kill the scientists rather than comply with their demands, Murderbot guides them through their meeting with Tlacey and thwarts another assassination attempt. Murderbot returns to the site of the massacre and learns it was the result of another mining operation's sabotage attempt using malware, which made all of the facility's SecUnits go berserk. The facility's ComfortUnits—weaponless, anatomically correct constructs sometimes disparagingly called "sexbots"—died attempting to stop the massacre. Tlacey's ComfortUnit voices its desire for freedom and willingness to help Murderbot thwart Tlacey. While the SecUnit meets with a Tlacey employee to secretly retrieve a copy of the research, Tlacey abducts one of the scientists, Tapan. Murderbot goes after her, accepting a combat override module intended to control the SecUnit but actually has no effect, due

  Read more →
• 

  Clanker

  Clanker is a derogatory term for robots and artificial intelligence (AI) software. The term has been used in Star Wars media, first appearing in the franchise's 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando. In 2025, the term became widely used to express hatred or distaste for machines ranging from delivery robots to large language models. This trend has been attributed to anxiety around the negative societal effects of AI. == In science fiction == The term has been previously used in science fiction literature, first appearing in a 1958 article by William Tenn in which he uses it to describe robots from science fiction films like Metropolis. The Star Wars franchise began using the term as a slur against droids in the 2005 video game Star Wars: Republic Commando before being prominently used in the animated series Star Wars: The Clone Wars, which follows a galaxy-wide war between the Galactic Republic's clone troopers and the Confederacy of Independent Systems' battle droids. In Star Wars media, robots—more commonly known as droids—are routinely depicted as the subjects of discrimination. For example, in the original Star Wars film, C-3PO and R2-D2 are abducted by Jawas and sold to the family of Luke Skywalker. When visiting a cantina in Mos Eisley, both droids are refused service by the bartender, who remarks that "We don't serve their kind." In Star Wars lore, the term clanker had entered use by the time of the franchise's High Republic Era and became prominent during the Clone Wars, in which clone troopers regularly use the phrase against battle droids. == AI backlash == The growing popularity of the term clanker reflects an increase in direct contact between people and AI systems. On sidewalks, delivery robots impede mobility and cause safety issues. In digital spaces, cybersecurity experts have raised concerns about the rising number of bots online, which now make up a large portion of internet traffic. A 2025 report estimated that about one in five social media accounts are automated. The term is also a reaction to AI advocacy from industrialists like Elon Musk and Sam Altman, who have championed the integration of AI into nearly every aspect of modern life. This includes efforts by major companies and startups alike, such as Amazon's development of humanoid robots to replace human workers in service industries. Such initiatives have further fueled public skepticism, reinforcing the association of clanker with unease over automation and the displacement of human roles. A global survey conducted by the research firm Gartner in December 2023 found that 64% of customers would prefer companies to avoid using AI in customer service, with another 53% stating they would consider switching to a different company if they discovered AI was handling their service interactions. Another report by Ernst & Young, published in July 2025, found that 42% of employees across Europe are worried that the use of AI in the workplace may threaten their employment. Criticism has also been directed at the technology itself. Some of the backlash stems from concerns about the resource consumption of AI systems, their frequent reliance on copyrighted material without consent, and questions about the intentions of the corporations behind them. There are also concerns about the potential cognitive effects of relying heavily on AI. A study, authored by researchers at Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University, warns that regular dependence on AI may leave users mentally unprepared for real-world problem solving, likening the effect to cognitive atrophy. In June 2025, United States Senator Ruben Gallego tweeted that his "new bill makes sure you don't have to talk to a clanker if you don't want to", referring to proposed legislation that would require call centers to disclose their use of automated customer service agents to callers in the United States and offer the option to switch to a human representative. == Analysis == Linguist Adam Aleksic has described clanker as an evolution of racial slurs that anthropomorphize robotic systems. Internet memes incorporating the term often reference historical discrimination against marginalized groups such as African Americans. Based on the work of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg, American news website Axios has argued that clanker is merely a derogatory word, rather than a slur, because it does not perpetuate social inequities. NPR has noted the irony that the word robot was coined by Karel Čapek for his 1920 science-fiction play R.U.R. as a similar criticism of industrialization forcing workers to become devoid of their humanity. Aleksic has observed that robot can be further traced to the Proto-Slavic noun orbъ, which means 'slave'. While other science fiction media include pejoratives for androids and robots, such as skinjob and toaster from the Blade Runner and Battlestar Galactica franchises, respectively, clanker is believed to have gained popularity because its usage is intuitive and flexible. Whereas AI slop describes low-quality output from artificial intelligence, clanker belittles the underlying computer systems.

  Read more →