AI Data Poisoning

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

• 

  Conversational user interface

  A conversational user interface (CUI) is a user interface for computers that emulates a conversation with a human. Historically, computers have relied on text-based user interfaces and graphical user interfaces (GUIs) (such as the user pressing a "back" button) to translate the user's desired action into commands the computer understands. While an effective mechanism of completing computing actions, there is a learning curve for the user associated with GUI. Instead, CUIs provide opportunity for the user to communicate with the computer in their natural language rather than in a syntax specific commands.

  Read more →
• 

  Cerebellar model articulation controller

  The cerebellar model arithmetic computer (CMAC) is a type of neural network based on a model of the mammalian cerebellum. It is also known as the cerebellar model articulation controller. It is a type of associative memory. The CMAC was first proposed as a function modeler for robotic controllers by James Albus in 1975 (hence the name), but has been extensively used in reinforcement learning and also as for automated classification in the machine learning community. The CMAC is an extension of the perceptron model. It computes a function for n {\displaystyle n} input dimensions. The input space is divided up into hyper-rectangles, each of which is associated with a memory cell. The contents of the memory cells are the weights, which are adjusted during training. Usually, more than one quantisation of input space is used, so that any point in input space is associated with a number of hyper-rectangles, and therefore with a number of memory cells. The output of a CMAC is the algebraic sum of the weights in all the memory cells activated by the input point. A change of value of the input point results in a change in the set of activated hyper-rectangles, and therefore a change in the set of memory cells participating in the CMAC output. The CMAC output is therefore stored in a distributed fashion, such that the output corresponding to any point in input space is derived from the value stored in a number of memory cells (hence the name associative memory). This provides generalisation. == Building blocks == In the adjacent image, there are two inputs to the CMAC, represented as a 2D space. Two quantising functions have been used to divide this space with two overlapping grids (one shown in heavier lines). A single input is shown near the middle, and this has activated two memory cells, corresponding to the shaded area. If another point occurs close to the one shown, it will share some of the same memory cells, providing generalisation. The CMAC is trained by presenting pairs of input points and output values, and adjusting the weights in the activated cells by a proportion of the error observed at the output. This simple training algorithm has a proof of convergence. It is normal to add a kernel function to the hyper-rectangle, so that points falling towards the edge of a hyper-rectangle have a smaller activation than those falling near the centre. One of the major problems cited in practical use of CMAC is the memory size required, which is directly related to the number of cells used. This is usually ameliorated by using a hash function, and only providing memory storage for the actual cells that are activated by inputs. == One-step convergent algorithm == Initially least mean square (LMS) method is employed to update the weights of CMAC. The convergence of using LMS for training CMAC is sensitive to the learning rate and could lead to divergence. In 2004, a recursive least squares (RLS) algorithm was introduced to train CMAC online. It does not need to tune a learning rate. Its convergence has been proved theoretically and can be guaranteed to converge in one step. The computational complexity of this RLS algorithm is O(N3). == Hardware implementation infrastructure == Based on QR decomposition, an algorithm (QRLS) has been further simplified to have an O(N) complexity. Consequently, this reduces memory usage and time cost significantly. A parallel pipeline array structure on implementing this algorithm has been introduced. Overall by utilizing QRLS algorithm, the CMAC neural network convergence can be guaranteed, and the weights of the nodes can be updated using one step of training. Its parallel pipeline array structure offers its great potential to be implemented in hardware for large-scale industry usage. == Continuous CMAC == Since the rectangular shape of CMAC receptive field functions produce discontinuous staircase function approximation, by integrating CMAC with B-splines functions, continuous CMAC offers the capability of obtaining any order of derivatives of the approximate functions. == Deep CMAC == In recent years, numerous studies have confirmed that by stacking several shallow structures into a single deep structure, the overall system could achieve better data representation, and, thus, more effectively deal with nonlinear and high complexity tasks. In 2018, a deep CMAC (DCMAC) framework was proposed and a backpropagation algorithm was derived to estimate the DCMAC parameters. Experimental results of an adaptive noise cancellation task showed that the proposed DCMAC can achieve better noise cancellation performance when compared with that from the conventional single-layer CMAC. == Summary ==

  Read more →
• 

  Business rule management system

  A BRMS or business rule management system is a software system used to define, deploy, execute, monitor and maintain the variety and complexity of decision logic that is used by operational systems within an organization or enterprise. This logic, also referred to as business rules, includes policies, requirements, and conditional statements that are used to determine the tactical actions that take place in applications and systems. == Overview == A BRMS includes, at minimum: A repository, allowing decision logic to be externalized from core application code Tools, allowing both technical developers and business experts to define and manage decision logic A runtime environment, allowing applications to invoke decision logic managed within the BRMS and execute it using a business rules engine The top benefits of a BRMS include: Reduced or removed reliance on IT departments for changes in live systems. Although, QA and Rules testing would still be needed in any enterprise system. Increased control over implemented decision logic for compliance and better business management including audit logs, impact simulation and edit controls. The ability to express decision logic with increased precision, using a business vocabulary syntax and graphical rule representations (decision tables, decision models, trees, scorecards and flows) Improved efficiency of processes through increased decision automation. Some disadvantages of the BRMS include: Extensive subject matter expertise can be required for vendor specific products. In addition to appropriate design practices (such as Decision Modeling), technical developers must know how to write rules and integrate software with existing systems Poor rule harvesting approaches can lead to long development cycles, though this can be mitigated with modern approaches like the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) standard. Integration with existing systems is still required and a BRMS may add additional security constraints. Reduced IT department reliance may never be a reality due to continued introduction to new business rule considerations or object model perturbations The coupling of a BRMS vendor application to the business application may be too tight to replace with another BRMS vendor application. This can lead to cost to benefits issues. The emergence of the DMN standard has mitigated this to some degree. Most BRMS vendors have evolved from rule engine vendors to provide business-usable software development lifecycle solutions, based on declarative definitions of business rules executed in their own rule engine. BRMSs are increasingly evolving into broader digital decisioning platforms that also incorporate decision intelligence and machine learning capabilities. However, some vendors come from a different approach (for example, they map decision trees or graphs to executable code). Rules in the repository are generally mapped to decision services that are naturally fully compliant with the latest SOA, Web Services, or other software architecture trends. == Related software approaches == In a BRMS, a representation of business rules maps to a software system for execution. A BRMS therefore relates to model-driven engineering, such as the model-driven architecture (MDA) of the Object Management Group (OMG). It is no coincidence that many of the related standards come under the OMG banner. A BRMS is a critical component for Enterprise Decision Management as it allows for the transparent and agile management of the decision-making logic required in systems developed using this approach. == Associated standards == The OMG Decision Model and Notation standard is designed to standardize elements of business rules development, specially decision table representations. There is also a standard for a Java Runtime API for rule engines JSR-94. OMG Business Motivation Model (BMM): A model of how strategies, processes, rules, etc. fit together for business modeling OMG SBVR: Targets business constraints as opposed to automating business behavior OMG Production Rule Representation (PRR): Represents rules for production rule systems that make up most BRMS' execution targets OMG Decision Model and Notation (DMN): Represents models of decisions, which are typically managed by a BRMS RuleML provides a family of rule mark-up languages that could be used in a BRMS and with W3C RIF it provides a family of related rule languages for rule interchange in the W3C Semantic Web stack Many standards, such as domain-specific languages, define their own representation of rules, requiring translations to generic rule engines or their own custom engines. Other domains, such as PMML, also define rules.

  Read more →
• 

  Yann LeCun

  Yann André Le Cun ( lə-KUN; French: [ləkœ̃]; usually spelled LeCun; born 8 July 1960) is a French-American computer scientist working in the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, robotics and image compression. He is the Jacob T. Schwartz Professor of Computer Science at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University. He served as Chief AI Scientist at Meta Platforms before co-founding Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in December 2025. He is well known for his work on optical character recognition and computer vision using convolutional neural networks (CNNs). He is also one of the main creators of the DjVu image compression technology, alongside Léon Bottou and Patrick Haffner. He co-developed the Lush programming language with Léon Bottou. In 2018, LeCun, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton received the Turing Award from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) for their work on deep learning. LeCun, Bengio, and Hinton, and occasionally Jürgen Schmidhuber, are sometimes referred to as the "Godfathers of AI" and "Godfathers of Deep Learning". == Early life and education == Yann André Le Cun was born on 8 July 1960 at Soisy-sous-Montmorency, in the suburbs of Paris. His surname, Le Cun, derives from the old Breton form Le Cunff and originates from the region of Guingamp in northern Brittany. Yann is the Breton form of Jean, the French form of John. He received a Diplôme d'Ingénieur from the ESIEE Paris in 1983 and a PhD in computer science from Université Pierre et Marie Curie (now Sorbonne University) in 1987, during which he proposed an early form of backpropagation, an algorithm crucial for enabling neural networks to learn. Before joining AT&T, LeCun was a postdoctoral researcher for a year, starting in 1987, supervised by Geoffrey Hinton at the University of Toronto. LeCun has three sons, and his brother is employed by Google. He has American citizenship. == Career and research == LeCun's career has been spent primarily at Bell Labs, New York University and Meta Platforms, Inc. === Bell Labs === In 1988, LeCun joined the Adaptive Systems Research Department at AT&T Bell Laboratories in Holmdel, New Jersey, United States, headed by Lawrence D. Jackel, where he developed a number of new machine learning methods, such as a biologically inspired model of image recognition called convolutional neural networks (LeNet), the "Optimal Brain Damage" regularization methods, and the Graph Transformer Networks method (similar to conditional random field), which he applied to handwriting recognition and Optical character recognition (OCR). The bank check recognition system that he helped develop was widely deployed by NCR and other companies. In 1996, he joined AT&T Labs-Research as head of the Image Processing Research Department, which was part of Lawrence Rabiner's Speech and Image Processing Research Lab, and worked primarily on the DjVu image compression technology, a format designed for efficient distribution of scanned documents, and used by the Internet Archive to provide access to digitized texts. His collaborators at AT&T include Léon Bottou and Vladimir Vapnik. === New York University === After a brief tenure as a fellow of NEC Research Institute, LeCun joined New York University in 2003, where he is Jacob T. Schwartz Chaired Professor of Computer Science and Neural Science at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences and the Center for Neural Science. At NYU, he has worked primarily on energy-based models for supervised and unsupervised learning, feature learning for object recognition in computer vision, and mobile robotics. In 2012, he became the founding director of the NYU Center for Data Science. On 9 December 2013, LeCun became the first director of Meta AI Research in New York City and in early 2014 stepped down from the NYU–CDS directorship. In 2013, he and Yoshua Bengio co-founded the International Conference on Learning Representations, which adopted a post-publication open review process he previously advocated on his website. He was the chair and organiser of the "Learning Workshop" held every year between 1986 and 2012 in Snowbird, Utah. He is a member of the Science Advisory Board of the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics at UCLA. He is the co-director of the Learning in Machines and Brain research program (formerly Neural Computation & Adaptive Perception) of CIFAR. In 2016, he was the visiting professor of computer science on the Chaire Annuelle Informatique et Sciences Numériques at Collège de France in Paris, where he presented the leçon inaugurale (inaugural lecture). In 2023, he was named as the inaugural Jacob T. Schwartz Chaired Professor in Computer Science at NYU's Courant Institute. LeCun is also a scientific advisor to French research group Kyutai which is being funded by Xavier Niel, Rodolphe Saadé, Eric Schmidt, and others. === Meta Platforms === LeCun joined Facebook (now Meta Platforms) in 2013 as chief AI scientist and led the company's AI research laboratory, FAIR. === AMI Labs === On 19 November 2025, LeCun confirmed that he would be leaving Meta after ten years to found his own company focused on world-model architectures and human-like artificial intelligence he calls superintelligence. The company he founded, Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs (or AMI Labs), is run by CEO Alex LeBrun, with LeCun serving as Executive Chair. This venture is focused on building AI "world models": systems that learn to understand the physical world's structure and dynamics rather than just predict text like large language models. In March 2026, AMI announced it had raised $1.03 billion in funding at a $3.5 billion pre-money valuation. The funding round was co-led by investors including Cathay Innovation, Greycroft, Hiro Capital, HV Capital and Bezos Expeditions. In January 2026, LeCun became founding chair of the Technical Research Board of Logical Intelligence, an AI company developing energy-based (EBM) reasoning systems. == Honours and awards == LeCun is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering and the French Académie des Sciences. He has received honorary doctorates from Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN) in Mexico City in 2016, from EPFL in 2018, from Université Côte d'Azur in 2021, from Università di Siena in 2023, and from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology in 2023. In 2014, he received the IEEE Neural Network Pioneer Award and in 2015, the PAMI Distinguished Researcher Award. In 2018, LeCun was awarded the IRI Medal, established by the Industrial Research Institute (IRI), and the Harold Pender Award, given by the University of Pennsylvania. In 2019, he received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement. In March 2019, LeCun won the 2018 Turing Award, sharing it with Yoshua Bengio and Geoffrey Hinton. In 2022, he received the Princess of Asturias Award in the category "Scientific Research", along with Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis. In 2023, the President of France made him a Chevalier (Knight) of the French Legion of Honour. During the World Economic Forum (WEF) 2024 in Davos, he received the Global Swiss AI Award 2023. The same year, he received the grand prize of the VinFuture Prize alongside Yoshua Bengio, Jensen Huang, Geoffrey Hinton, and Fei-Fei Li for their groundbreaking contributions to neural networks and deep learning algorithms. In 2025 he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering jointly with Yoshua Bengio, Bill Dally, Geoffrey E. Hinton, John Hopfield, Jensen Huang and Fei-Fei Li.

  Read more →
• 

  Operation Serenata de Amor

  Operation Serenata de Amor is an artificial intelligence project designed to analyze public spending in Brazil. The project has been funded by a recurrent financing campaign since September 7, 2016, and came in the wake of major scandals of misappropriation of public funds in Brazil, such as the Mensalão scandal and what was revealed in the Operation Car Wash investigations. The analysis began with data from the National Congress then expanded to other types of budget and instances of government, such as the Federal Senate. The project is built through collaboration on GitHub and using a public group with more than 600 participants on Telegram. The name "Serenata de Amor," which means "serenade of love," was taken from a popular cashew cream bonbon produced by Chocolates Garoto in Brazil. == Modules == Throughout development of the project, new modules have been newly introduced in addition to the main repository: The main repository, serenata-de-amor, serves as the starting point for investigative work. Rosie is the robot programmed to identify public funds expenses with discrepancies, starting with CEAP (Quota for Exercise of Parliamentary Activity); it analyzes each of the reimbursements requested by the deputies and senators, indicating the reasons that lead it to believe they are suspicious. From Rosie was born whistleblower, which tweets under the name of @RosieDaSerenata, distributing the results found on social media. Jarbas (Github repository) is a data visualization tool which shows a complete list of reimbursements made available by the Chamber of Deputies and mined by Rosie. Toolbox is a Python installable package that supports the development of Serenata de Amor and Rosie. == History == Operation Serenata de Amor is an Artificial intelligence project for analysis of public expenditures. It was conceived in March 2016 by data scientist Irio Musskopf, sociologist Eduardo Cuducos and entrepreneur Felipe Cabral. The project was financed collectively in the Catarse platform, where it reached 131% of the collection goal paying 3 months of project development. Ana Schwendler, also a data scientist, Pedro Vilanova "Tonny", data journalist, Bruno Pazzim, software engineer, Filipe Linhares, a frontend engineer, Leandro Devegili, an entrepreneur and André Pinho took the first steps towards constructing the platform, such as collecting and structuring the first datasets. Jessica Temporal, data scientist and Yasodara Córdova "Yaso", researcher, Tatiana Balachova "Russa", UX designer, joined the project after the financing took place. The members created a recurring financing campaign, expanding the analysis of public spending to the Federal Senate. Donors make monthly payments ranging from 5 BRL to 200 BRL to maintain group activities. The monthly amount collected is around 10,000 BRL. == Results == In January 2017, concluding the period financed by the initial campaign, the group carried out an investigation into the suspicious activities found by the data analysis system. 629 complaints were made to the Ombudsman's Office of the Chamber of Deputies, questioning expenses of 216 federal deputies. In addition, the Facebook project page has more than 25,000 followers, and users frequently cite the operation as a benchmark in transparency in the Brazilian government. One of the examples of results obtained by the operation is the case of the Deputy who had to return about 700 BRL to the House after his expenses were analyzed by the platform. The platform was able to analyze more than 3 million notes, raising about 8,000 suspected cases in public spending. The community that supports the work of the team benefits from open source repositories, with licenses open for the collaboration. So much so that the two main data scientists of the project presented it at the CivicTechFest in Taipei, obtaining several mentions even in the international press. The technical leader presented the project in Poland during DevConf2017 in Kraków. It was also presented in the Google News Lab in 2017. It was presented by Yaso, when she was the Director of the initiative, at the MIT Media Lab/Berkman Klein Center Initiative for Artificial Intelligence ethics, and at the Artificial Intelligence and Inclusion Symposium, an initiative of the Global Network of Internet & Society Centers (NoC). It was also presented both by Irio and Yaso at the Digital Harvard Kennedy School, over a lunch seminar, where the transparency of the platform and the main solutions found were discussed, so that the code and data are always available to verify its suitability. This infographic provides information about the first results of Operation Serenata de Amor, a project that analyzes open data on public spending to find discrepancies. The project was presented by Yaso to the House Audit and Control Committee of the Chamber of Deputies in August 2017, and raised the interest of House officials who work with open data. The operation has been a source of inspiration for other civic projects that aim to work with similar goals, demonstrating the broader impact of artificial intelligence also in industry in Brazil. Participation of several team members in events throughout Brazil and abroad can be found on the Internet, such as presentation at OpenDataDay, held at Calango Hackerspace in the Federal District, Campus Party Bahia, Campus Party Brasilia, Friends of Tomorrow, XIII National Meeting of Internal Control, in the event USP Talks Hackfest against corruption in João Pessoa, the latter being also highlighted in the National Press.

  Read more →
• 

  Jakub Pachocki

  Jakub Pachocki (born 1991) is a Polish computer scientist and former competitive programmer. He is best known as OpenAI's chief scientist and for his role in overseeing development of GPT-4. == Background == Pachocki was born in 1991 in Gdańsk, Poland. In high school, he was a six-time finalist of the Polish Olympiad in Informatics. In 2009, he qualified for the International Olympiad in Informatics, winning a silver medal. Pachocki obtained his undergraduate degree in Computer Science from the University of Warsaw. He represented his university at the International Collegiate Programming Contest with his team winning a gold medal and coming second place overall in 2012. In the same year he was also the champion of the Google Code Jam. From 2011 to 2012, Pachocki worked at Facebook as a software engineering intern. Pachocki attended graduate school at Carnegie Mellon University, where he obtained his PhD under the supervision of Gary Miller. == Career == After graduation, Pachocki did postdoc work at Harvard University and Simons Institute for the Theory of Computing. === OpenAI === In 2017, Pachocki joined OpenAI. In 2021, he became OpenAI's research director where he led the development of GPT-4 and OpenAI Five. In May 2024, he became chief scientist after his mentor Ilya Sutskever left the company. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has called Pachocki "easily one of the greatest minds of our generation". == Competitive programming achievements == International Olympiad in Informatics: Silver medal (2009) International Collegiate Programming Contest World Finals: Gold medal (second place overall in 2012) Google Code Jam: Champion (2012), Third place (2011) Facebook Hacker Cup: Second place (2013) TopCoder Open Algorithm: Second place (2012) A more comprehensive list of achievements can be found at the Competitive Programming Hall Of Fame website.

  Read more →
• 

  Procedural reasoning system

  In artificial intelligence, a procedural reasoning system (PRS) is a framework for constructing real-time reasoning systems that can perform complex tasks in dynamic environments. It is based on the notion of a rational agent or intelligent agent using the belief–desire–intention software model. A user application is predominately defined, and provided to a PRS system is a set of knowledge areas. Each knowledge area is a piece of procedural knowledge that specifies how to do something, e.g., how to navigate down a corridor, or how to plan a path (in contrast with robotic architectures where the programmer just provides a model of what the states of the world are and how the agent's primitive actions affect them). Such a program, together with a PRS interpreter, is used to control the agent. The interpreter is responsible for maintaining beliefs about the world state, choosing which goals to attempt to achieve next, and choosing which knowledge area to apply in the current situation. How exactly these operations are performed might depend on domain-specific meta-level knowledge areas. Unlike traditional AI planning systems that generate a complete plan at the beginning, and replan if unexpected things happen, PRS interleaves planning and doing actions in the world. At any point, the system might only have a partially specified plan for the future. PRS is based on the BDI or belief–desire–intention framework for intelligent agents. Beliefs consist of what the agent believes to be true about the current state of the world, desires consist of the agent's goals, and intentions consist of the agent's current plans for achieving those goals. Furthermore, each of these three components is typically explicitly represented somewhere within the memory of the PRS agent at runtime, which is in contrast to purely reactive systems, such as the subsumption architecture. == History == The PRS concept was developed by the Artificial Intelligence Center at SRI International during the 1980s, by many workers including Michael Georgeff, Amy L. Lansky, and François Félix Ingrand. Their framework was responsible for exploiting and popularizing the BDI model in software for control of an intelligent agent. The seminal application of the framework was a fault detection system for the reaction control system of the NASA Space Shuttle Discovery. Development on this PRS continued at the Australian Artificial Intelligence Institute through to the late 1990s, which led to the development of a C++ implementation and extension called dMARS. == Architecture == The system architecture of SRI's PRS includes the following components: Database for beliefs about the world, represented using first order predicate calculus. Goals to be realized by the system as conditions over an interval of time on internal and external state descriptions (desires). Knowledge areas (KAs) or plans that define sequences of low-level actions toward achieving a goal in specific situations. Intentions that include those KAs that have been selected for current and eventual execution. Interpreter or inference mechanism that manages the system. == Features == SRI's PRS was developed for embedded application in dynamic and real-time environments. As such it specifically addressed the limitations of other contemporary control and reasoning architectures like expert systems and the blackboard system. The following define the general requirements for the development of their PRS: asynchronous event handling guaranteed reaction and response types procedural representation of knowledge handling of multiple problems reactive and goal-directed behavior focus of attention reflective reasoning capabilities continuous embedded operation handling of incomplete or inaccurate data handling of transients modeling delayed feedback operator control == Applications == The seminal application of SRI's PRS was a monitoring and fault detection system for the reaction control system (RCS) on the NASA space shuttle. The RCS provides propulsive forces from a collection of jet thrusters and controls altitude of the space shuttle. A PRS-based fault diagnostic system was developed and tested using a simulator. It included over 100 KAs and over 25 meta level KAs. RCS specific KAs were written by space shuttle mission controllers. It was implemented on the Symbolics 3600 Series LISP machine and used multiple communicating instances of PRS. The system maintained over 1000 facts about the RCS, over 650 facts for the forward RCS alone and half of which are updated continuously during the mission. A version of the PRS was used to monitor the reaction control system on the Space Shuttle Discovery. PRS was tested on Shakey the robot including navigational and simulated jet malfunction scenarios based on the space shuttle. Later applications included a network management monitor called the Interactive Real-time Telecommunications Network Management System (IRTNMS) for Telecom Australia. == Extensions == The following list the major implementations and extensions of the PRS architecture. UM-PRS OpenPRS (formerly C-PRS and Propice) AgentSpeak Distributed multi-agent reasoning system (dMARS) GORITE JAM JACK Intelligent Agents SRI Procedural Agent Realization Kit (SPARK) PRS-CL

  Read more →
• 

  Computational theory of mind

  In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri

  Read more →
• 

  Fling (social network)

  Fling was a social media app available for IOS and Android. It was founded in 2014 by Marco Nardone and was taken offline in August 2016. == Overview == In 2012, Marco Nardone founded the startup Unii and launched Unii.com, a social network intended for students in the UK. While working on this service, Nardone had the idea for a messaging service where pictures could be sent to strangers in January 2014. The app Fling was then developed and released between March and July 2014. After a month, it already had 375,000 downloads and 180,000 active users on iOS. Users were able to take pictures inside the app and send them to 50 random people all over the world. The recipient could then choose to answer via chat or reply by sending a picture themselves. The app was used by many users as a medium to exchange sexually explicit pictures and for sexting with strangers. This led to the app being removed from the App Store in June 2015. In the 19 days that followed, flings developers rewrote the App almost completely from scratch, working around the clock. The feature to message random strangers was removed, and the app was readmitted into the App Store as a messenger App resembling Snapchat. But the redesigned Application did not have the success of its predecessor. The funding ran out and the parent company Unii went bankrupt. The company was not able to pay their content moderation team anymore, leading to a new surge of pornographic content on the App. Shortly after that, the Social Network was taken offline in August 2016. It has been inactive since. During the 2 years Fling was online, $21 million was raised from investors while generating no revenue at all. Of this $21 million (£16.5m), £5 million came from Nardone's father. == Allegations against CEO == Former employees made multiple allegations against Marco Nardone, the Founder and CEO of Unii and Fling. According to these claims, he behaved erratic and abusive, throwing "things across the office". He hired his girlfriend as the head of human resources to handle issues between him and his staff. Employees who left the company often had "some part of their pay held back". According to the reports, he also spent the money raised from investors irresponsibly, having no clear concept of a budget. Some of that money was used on expensive restaurants in London, a luxurious office for CEO Nardone and advertisements for Fling on Twitter and Facebook. Nardone also spent time partying in Ibiza with two employees, while the developer team in London frantically tried to get Fling back online after it being removed from the App Store. In December 2017 he pleaded guilty to assaulting his girlfriend at a domestic violence court.

  Read more →
• 

  Responsible AI Safety and Education Act

  The Responsible AI Safety and Education Act (RAISE Act) is a New York State law that imposes transparency, safety, and reporting requirements on developers of large frontier artificial intelligence models. The law was signed by Governor Kathy Hochul on December 19, 2025. It was sponsored by State Senator Andrew Gounardes and Assemblymember Alex Bores. The RAISE Act is the second U.S. state law to regulate frontier AI model developers, following California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act (TFAIA), which was signed in September 2025. Hochul signed the bill on the condition that the legislature would pass chapter amendments to bring the law closer to the California model. The amending bills (A9449/S8828) were introduced in January 2026; as of February 2026 they remain in committee, though the Governor's office and legal commentators treat the agreed-upon amendments as representing the final form of the law. == Provisions == The following describes the RAISE Act as it is expected to operate after the agreed-upon chapter amendments take effect. The law is expected to take effect on January 1, 2027. === Scope === The law applies to "large frontier developers," defined as companies with annual revenues exceeding $500 million that develop "frontier models," which are foundation models trained using more than 1026 floating-point operations (FLOPs). The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had instead defined large developers based on having spent over $100 million in aggregate compute costs, and also included a provision prohibiting deployment of frontier models posing "unreasonable risk of critical harm"; both were removed as part of the negotiations between Hochul and the legislature. Accredited colleges and universities engaged in academic research are exempt, as is the state's Empire AI consortium. === Safety and transparency framework === Large frontier developers must write, implement, and publicly publish a "frontier AI framework" describing how they assess and mitigate catastrophic risks, secure unreleased model weights against unauthorized access, use third-party evaluators, govern internal use of frontier models, and respond to safety incidents. The framework must describe these measures "in detail," a requirement that goes beyond the California TFAIA's requirement to describe a developer's "approach." The framework must be reviewed at least annually, and material modifications must be published with justification within 30 days. Before or concurrently with deploying a new or substantially modified frontier model, developers must publish a transparency report including the model's release date, supported languages and output modalities, intended uses, and any restrictions on use. Large frontier developers must additionally include summaries of catastrophic risk assessments and the extent of third-party involvement. === Catastrophic risk and incident reporting === The law defines "catastrophic risk" as a foreseeable and material risk that a frontier model will contribute to the death of or serious injury to more than 50 people, or more than $1 billion in property damage, arising from a frontier model providing expert-level assistance in creating chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons; engaging in cyberattacks or conduct equivalent to crimes such as murder, assault, or theft without meaningful human oversight; or evading the control of its developer or user. Loss of equity value is explicitly excluded from the definition of property damage. "Critical safety incidents" include unauthorized access to model weights resulting in death or injury, materialization of a catastrophic risk, loss of control of a frontier model causing death or injury, and a model using deceptive techniques to subvert developer controls outside of an evaluation context in a manner that increases catastrophic risk. Frontier developers must report critical safety incidents within 72 hours, or within 24 hours if the incident poses an imminent risk of death or serious physical injury. === Enforcement === The chapter amendments establish a new office within the New York State Department of Financial Services to oversee compliance, receive incident reports, and publish annual reports on AI safety beginning in 2028. Large frontier developers must file disclosure statements with this office and pay pro rata assessments to fund its operations. The New York Attorney General may bring civil actions, with penalties of up to $1 million for a first violation and $3 million for subsequent violations. The version passed by the legislature in June 2025 had set penalties at up to $10 million and $30 million respectively. The law does not create a private right of action. == Legislative history == The bill was introduced in the Assembly on March 5, 2025, by Assemblymember Alex Bores, and in the Senate on March 27, 2025, by Senator Andrew Gounardes. After a series of amendments, the legislature passed the bill in June 2025. Governor Hochul did not immediately sign the bill, using nearly all the time available under New York law before acting; had she not signed by the end of 2025, the bill would have been pocket vetoed. The tech industry lobbied against the bill during this period, and Hochul initially proposed a near-complete rewrite modeled on California's TFAIA. Legislators resisted the extent of the changes, and the two sides ultimately agreed on a version that used the California law as a base but preserved several provisions that went beyond it, including the 72-hour incident reporting timeline and the creation of a dedicated enforcement office. Hochul signed the original bill (S6953-B/A6453-B) on December 19, 2025, with the legislature committing to pass chapter amendments formalizing the agreed changes in the January 2026 session. The amending bills (A9449 in the Assembly, S8828 in the Senate) were introduced on January 6 and January 8, 2026. OpenAI and Anthropic expressed support for the law. Anthropic's head of external affairs Sarah Heck said the two state laws "should inspire Congress to build on them." The super PAC network Leading the Future, backed by Andreessen Horowitz and OpenAI president Greg Brockman, subsequently announced plans to challenge Bores in a future election. == Federal preemption debate == Hochul signed the RAISE Act eight days after President Donald Trump issued an executive order on December 11, 2025, directing the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws deemed to conflict with a "minimally burdensome" national AI policy. On January 9, 2026, the Department of Justice announced the establishment of an AI Litigation Task Force as called for by the executive order. The executive order also threatened states with loss of certain federal broadband funding if their AI laws were found to be onerous. Legal commentators have noted several potential avenues for federal challenge, including arguments that the law constitutes compelled speech, violates the dormant Commerce Clause by creating a patchwork of state regulations, or is preempted by federal AI policy. == Comparison with California's TFAIA == The RAISE Act was designed to align with California's Transparency in Frontier Artificial Intelligence Act, signed on September 29, 2025. Both laws use the same 1026 FLOP threshold to define frontier models and the same $500 million revenue threshold to define large developers. Both require public safety frameworks, transparency reports, and incident reporting. The RAISE Act's 72-hour incident reporting window is stricter than the TFAIA's 15-day window, though both require faster reporting for incidents posing imminent physical risk (24 hours under the RAISE Act, immediate under the TFAIA). The RAISE Act establishes a dedicated enforcement office within the Department of Financial Services, whereas California routes reports through the Office of Emergency Services. The RAISE Act requires developers to describe their safety measures "in detail" and how they "handle" various risks, whereas the TFAIA requires developers to describe their "approach."

  Read more →
• 

  Inbenta

  Inbenta is an AI company that originated in Barcelona, Spain, in 2005. Inbenta is currently headquartered in Allen, Texas, with additional offices in Spain, São Paulo, Brazil, Toulouse, France, and Tokyo, Japan. Inbenta provides natural language processing and semantic search through artificial intelligence. == History == Inbenta raised $12 Million in their Series B funding round to extend the reach of their artificial intelligence for business solutions. In 2023 Inbenta's new chief executive officer Melissa Solis moved Inbenta's headquarters to One Bethany West in Allen, Texas from Foster City, California. == Controversy == On 23 June 2018, Ticketmaster UK identified malicious software on a customer support product hosted by Inbenta Technologies, compromising personal data and payment details for thousands of Ticketmaster customers. Three days later, Inbenta's CEO Issued a message about the incident to convey the full scope of the breach. Also on its FAQ section, Inbenta claimed that "After a careful analysis of all clues and snapshots from our systems, the technical team at Inbenta discovered that the script had been implemented on the payment page. We were unaware of this, and would have advised against doing so had we known, as it presents a point of vulnerability". On November 13, 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office fined Ticketmaster UK Limited £1.25 million for failing to protect customers' payment details. According to the ICO, "It was because of Ticketmaster's business decision to include the [Inbenta] chat bot on its payment page that the chat bot was able to unlawfully process the personal data of customers."

  Read more →
• 

  Conflict resolution strategy

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

  Read more →
• 

  Prosthesis

  In medicine, a prosthesis (pl.: prostheses; from Ancient Greek: πρόσθεσις, romanized: prósthesis, lit. 'addition, application, attachment'), or a prosthetic implant, is an artificial device that replaces a missing body part, which may be lost through physical trauma, disease, or a condition present at birth (congenital disorder). Prostheses may restore the normal functions of the missing body part, or may perform a cosmetic function. A person who has undergone an amputation is sometimes referred to as an amputee, Rehabilitation for someone with an amputation is primarily coordinated by a physiatrist as part of an inter-disciplinary team consisting of physiatrists, prosthetists, nurses, physical therapists, and occupational therapists. Prostheses can be created by hand or with computer-aided design (CAD), a software interface that helps creators design and analyze the creation with computer-generated 2-D and 3-D graphics as well as analysis and optimization tools. == Types == A person's prosthetic device should be designed and assembled to meet their individual appearance and functional needs. Depending on personal circumstances, co-morbidities, budget or health insurance coverage, and access to medical care, decisions may need to balance aesthetics and function. In addition, for some individuals, a myoelectric device, a body-powered device, or an activity-specific device may be appropriate options. The person's future goals and vocational aspirations and potential capabilities may help them choose between one or more devices. Craniofacial prostheses include intra-oral and extra-oral prostheses. Extra-oral prostheses are further divided into hemifacial, auricular (ear), nasal, orbital and ocular. Intra-oral prostheses include dental prostheses, such as dentures, obturators, and dental implants. Prostheses of the neck include larynx substitutes, trachea and upper esophageal replacements, Some prostheses of the torso include breast prostheses which may be either single or bilateral, full breast devices or nipple prostheses. Penile prostheses are used to treat erectile dysfunction, perform phalloplasty procedures in men, and to build a new penis in female-to-male gender reassignment surgeries. === Limb prostheses === Limb prostheses include both upper- and lower-extremity prostheses. Upper-extremity prostheses are used at varying levels of amputation: forequarter, shoulder disarticulation, transhumeral prosthesis, elbow disarticulation, transradial prosthesis, wrist disarticulation, full hand, partial hand, finger, partial finger. A transradial prosthesis is an artificial limb that replaces an arm missing below the elbow. Upper limb prostheses can be categorized in three main categories: Passive devices, Body Powered devices, and Externally Powered (myoelectric) devices. Passive devices can either be passive hands, mainly used for cosmetic purposes, or passive tools, mainly used for specific activities (e.g. leisure or vocational). An extensive overview and classification of passive devices can be found in a literature review by Maat et.al. A passive device can be static, meaning the device has no movable parts, or it can be adjustable, meaning its configuration can be adjusted (e.g. adjustable hand opening). Despite the absence of active grasping, passive devices are very useful in bimanual tasks that require fixation or support of an object, or for gesticulation in social interaction. According to scientific data a third of the upper limb amputees worldwide use a passive prosthetic hand. Body Powered or cable-operated limbs work by attaching a harness and cable around the opposite shoulder of the damaged arm. A recent body-powered approach has explored the utilization of the user's breathing to power and control the prosthetic hand to help eliminate actuation cable and harness. The third category of available prosthetic devices comprises myoelectric arms. This particular class of devices distinguishes itself from the previous ones due to the inclusion of a battery system. This battery serves the dual purpose of providing energy for both actuation and sensing components. While actuation predominantly relies on motor or pneumatic systems, a variety of solutions have been explored for capturing muscle activity, including techniques such as Electromyography, Sonomyography, Myokinetic, and others. These methods function by detecting the minute electrical currents generated by contracted muscles during upper arm movement, typically employing electrodes or other suitable tools. Subsequently, these acquired signals are converted into gripping patterns or postures that the artificial hand will then execute. In the prosthetics industry, a trans-radial prosthetic arm is often referred to as a "BE" or below elbow prosthesis. Lower-extremity prostheses provide replacements at varying levels of amputation. These include hip disarticulation, transfemoral prosthesis, knee disarticulation, transtibial prosthesis, Syme's amputation, foot, partial foot, and toe. The two main subcategories of lower extremity prosthetic devices are trans-tibial (any amputation transecting the tibia bone or a congenital anomaly resulting in a tibial deficiency) and trans-femoral (any amputation transecting the femur bone or a congenital anomaly resulting in a femoral deficiency). A transfemoral prosthesis is an artificial limb that replaces a leg missing above the knee. Transfemoral amputees can have a very difficult time regaining normal movement. In general, a transfemoral amputee must use approximately 80% more energy to walk than a person with two whole legs. This is due to the complexities in movement associated with the knee. In newer and more improved designs, hydraulics, carbon fiber, mechanical linkages, motors, computer microprocessors, and innovative combinations of these technologies are employed to give more control to the user. In the prosthetics industry, a trans-femoral prosthetic leg is often referred to as an "AK" or above the knee prosthesis. A transtibial prosthesis is an artificial limb that replaces a leg missing below the knee. A transtibial amputee is usually able to regain normal movement more readily than someone with a transfemoral amputation, due in large part to retaining the knee, which allows for easier movement. Lower extremity prosthetics describe artificially replaced limbs located at the hip level or lower. In the prosthetics industry, a transtibial prosthetic leg is often referred to as a "BK" or below the knee prosthesis. Prostheses are manufactured and fit by clinical prosthetists. Prosthetists are healthcare professionals responsible for making, fitting, and adjusting prostheses and for lower limb prostheses will assess both gait and prosthetic alignment. Once a prosthesis has been fit and adjusted by a prosthetist, a rehabilitation physiotherapist (called physical therapist in America) will help teach a new prosthetic user to walk with a leg prosthesis. To do so, the physical therapist may provide verbal instructions and may also help guide the person using touch or tactile cues. This may be done in a clinic or home. There is some research suggesting that such training in the home may be more successful if the treatment includes the use of a treadmill. Using a treadmill, along with the physical therapy treatment, helps the person to experience many of the challenges of walking with a prosthesis. In the United Kingdom, 75% of lower limb amputations are performed due to inadequate circulation (dysvascularity). This condition is often associated with many other medical conditions (co-morbidities) including diabetes and heart disease that may make it a challenge to recover and use a prosthetic limb to regain mobility and independence. For people who have inadequate circulation and have lost a lower limb, there is insufficient evidence due to a lack of research, to inform them regarding their choice of prosthetic rehabilitation approaches. Lower extremity prostheses are often categorized by the level of amputation or after the name of a surgeon: Transfemoral (Above-knee) Transtibial (Below-knee) Ankle disarticulation (more commonly known as Syme's amputation) Knee disarticulation (also see knee replacement) Hip disarticulation, (also see hip replacement) Hemi-pelvictomy Partial foot amputations (Pirogoff, Talo-Navicular and Calcaneo-cuboid (Chopart), Tarso-metatarsal (Lisfranc), Trans-metatarsal, Metatarsal-phalangeal, Ray amputations, toe amputations). Van Nes rotationplasty ==== Prosthetic raw materials ==== Prosthetic are made lightweight for better convenience for the amputee. Some of these materials include: Plastics: Polyethylene Polypropylene Acrylics Polyurethane Wood (early prosthetics) Rubber (early prosthetics) Lightweight metals: Aluminum Composites: Carbon fiber reinforced polymers Wheeled prostheses have also been used extensively in the rehabilitation of injured domestic animals, including dogs, cats, pigs, rabbits, and

  Read more →
• 

  Six Little Dragons

  Six Little Dragons (Chinese: 杭州六小龙), or Six Little Dragons of Hangzhou, are an informal grouping of the tech startups Game Science, DeepSeek, Unitree Robotics, DEEP Robotics, BrainCo and Manycore Tech. All six were established in Hangzhou, They are active in artificial intelligence, robotics, gaming, and brain-computer interface technology. Hangzhou is referred to as the China’s “e-commerce capital” (电商之都). The nickname "Six Little Dragons" originated from the Chinese internet. == Background == === Chinese government investments (2002 — 2010s) === From 2002 to 2007, under Xi Jinping's leadership as party secretary of Zhejiang, provincial spending on technology research grew over four times to 28 billion RMB. The province launched "Digital Zhejiang" (数字浙江) to advance modernization and the "Eight Eight Strategy" (八八战略), focusing on eight advantages and actions to boost industrial development, including specialized industries. In 2010, Hangzhou's government started "Project Eagle" (雏鹰计划) to aid science and technology startups. The project works with incubators and accelerators to find promising tech companies and offers public funding and other help, especially for startups by graduates and returning students. Unitree received support in the initial phase, along with government subsidies from Binjiang District. === AI-startups and further investments (2025 — present) === In January 2025, the Chinese government created the "Hangzhou AI Industry Chain High-Quality Development Action Plan" which focuses on computing power, LLM technologies, and AI applications. The plan was made to certify over 2,000 new high-tech enterprises, initiate over 300 major tech projects, and invest more than 300 billion RMB (US$40 billion) annually. The Chinese government also renewed "Project Eagle" and to allocate 15% of industrial policy funds for future industries. Hangzhou aimed to become a center for tech startups, highlighting the "six little dragons of Hangzhou," a nickname popularized in early 2025. This group includes DeepSeek, Game Science, Unitree Robotics, Manycore Tech, BrainCo, and DEEP Robotics, companies in gaming, robotics, and software development. Earlier in 2025, DeepSeek, one of the six dragons, launched an AI system at a much lower cost than those from Silicon Valley. Since then, DeepSeek and Alibaba have produced top-performing open source AI models. Game Science launched the successful video game Black Myth: Wukong in 2024, while Unitree gained attention for their dancing robots in the 2025 annual spring gala broadcast by Chinese state media. The group was acknowledged by Chinese authorities in Hangzhou in a New Years message for local businesses in January 2025. Hangzhou’s universities were given credit for the development of Chinese technological industry. Zhejiang University alumni founded three of the "Six Little Dragons". By September 2024, the university produced 102 executives in Chinese AI start-ups, ranking third among China's top institutions. On February 20, 2025, Alibaba's Eddie Wu stated that the company would focus on artificial generative intelligence and plans significant investment in AI. The company also sought to boost foreign investment to China's "Six Little Dragons" following Alibaba's founder Jack Ma attended General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party Xi Jinping's business symposium with corporate leaders and entrepreneurs that same month. == Challenges == China's net foreign direct investment (FDI) fell by US$168 billion in 2024, marking the largest capital flight since 1990. Foreign investment peaked at US$344 billion in 2021 but has since declined according to the State Administration of Foreign Exchange. In 2024, foreign investors put in only US$4.5 billion while Chinese firms invested US$173 billion abroad. According to interviews conducted by The New York Times, some start-up company founders believe that Chinese government's support for Hangzhou's technological sector has deterred foreign investors. Tensions with the United States led many international companies to adopt a China Plus One strategy, while Chinese firms build factories overseas to avoid potential Trump tariffs. China also faced US restrictions on its access of advanced chips, forcing Chinese tech companies to stockpile Nvidia chips while Chinese producers like Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC) were competing to produce their own.

  Read more →
• 

  Existential risk from artificial intelligence

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

  Read more →