AI Data Quality Analyst Jobs — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.
Flexidraw is a 1985 graphics computer program published by Inkwell Systems. == Gameplay == Flexidraw is a graphics program that allows users to produce drawings using a light pen and print them. == Reception == Roy Wagner reviewed the product for Computer Gaming World, and stated that "Of the many graphics programs available Flexidraw is certainly the best supported by it's [sic] parent company."
Read more →
Space-based data centers or orbital AI infrastructure are proposed concepts to build AI data centers in the sun-synchronous orbit or other orbits utilizing space-based solar power. Electric power has become the main bottleneck for terrestrial AI infrastructure. Space-based edge computing has historical roots in military architectures designed to bypass the latency of ground-based targeting networks. In the 1980s, the Strategic Defense Initiative's Brilliant Pebbles program first envisioned autonomous on-orbit data processing for missile defense. In 2019, the Space Development Agency (SDA) began to revive this decentralized approach through its Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA). This ambitious "sensor-to-shooter" infrastructure is treated as a prerequisite for the modern Golden Dome program, which would rely on space-based data processing to continuously track targets. == History == Early thinking about space-based computing infrastructure grew out of mid-20th-century visions for large orbital industrial systems, most notably proposals for space-based solar power, which were popularized in both technical literature and science writing by figures such as Isaac Asimov in the 1940s. These ideas emphasized exploiting the vacuum, continuous solar energy, and thermal characteristics of space to support power-intensive activities that would be difficult or inefficient on Earth. In the 21st century, advances in small satellites, reusable launch vehicles, and high-performance computing revived interest in space-based data centers, with governments and private companies exploring orbital or near-space platforms for edge computing, secure data handling, and low-latency processing of Earth-observation data. In September 2024, Y Combinator-backed Starcloud released a white paper detailing plans to build multiple gigawatts of AI compute in orbit. It was the first widely cited proposal to actually start building large orbital data centers. In 2025, Starcloud deployed an NVIDIA H100-class system and became the first company to train an LLM in space and run a version of Google Gemini in space. In March 2025, Lonestar deployed a data backup machine on the surface of the moon. In early January 2026, a team from the University of Pennsylvania presented a tether-based architecture for orbital data centers at the AIAA SciTech conference. The design relied on gravity gradient tension and solar-pressure-based passive attitude stabilization to minimize the mass of MW-scale orbital data centers. In January 2026, SpaceX filed plans with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for millions of satellites, leveraging reusable launches and Starlink integration to extend cloud and AI computing into orbit. Around the same time, Blue Origin announced the TeraWave constellation of about 5,400 satellites, designed to provide high‑throughput networking for data centers, enterprise, and government customers. Meanwhile, China announced a 200,000‑satellite constellation, focusing on state coordination, data sovereignty, and in-orbit processing for secure, time-critical applications. In February 2026, Starcloud submitted a proposal to the FCC for a constellation of up to 88,000 satellites for orbital data centers. In March, it announced intentions to be the first to mine Bitcoin in space, flying bitcoin mining ASICs on its second satellite, Starcloud-2. In May 2026, Edge Aerospace was awarded a contract by the European Space Agency under its Space Cloud program to study use cases, architectures and implementation roadmap for orbital data centers. == Feasibility == In October 2025, Nature Electronics published a study led by a research group at Nanyang Technological University on the development of carbon-neutral data centres in space. In November 2025, Google published a feasibility study on space-based data centers. The authors argued that if launch costs to low earth orbit reached US$200/kg, the launch cost for data center satellites could be cost effective relative to current energy costs for ground-based data centers. They project this may occur around 2035 if SpaceX's Starship project scales to 180 launches/year by then. == Advantages == Some sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) planes have constant sunlight in the dawn/dusk which could provide continuous solar energy. SSO is a limited resource and proper management and sharing of it is required. Solar irradiance is 36% higher in Earth orbit than on the surface No Earth weather storms or clouds, however more exposed to Solar storms. No property tax or land-use regulation. Saves space for other land use. Ample space for scalability. Won't strain the power grid. Direct access to power source without additional infrastructure. == Disadvantages == The deployment of space-based data centers raises several technical, economic, and environmental concerns. Existing launch costs are substantial and remains main cost of space infrastructure deployment Cooling is limited to heat dissipation through radiation only, which made in inefficient in comparison to convection in terrestrial data centers Space infrastructure must be designed to survive launch and to work under environment conditions of radiation, wide range of temperatures, in vacuum and in microgravity In-space assembly is on early development stage to enable deployment of mega-structures Megastructures are particularly exposed to orbital debris Solar arrays efficiency decrease 0.5% to 0.8% per year due to exposure of ultraviolet rays, space weather and orbital thermal cycles Hardware is designed for limited lifespan. Maintenance and repair in space (known as On-Orbit Servicing (OOS)) is still on early stage of practical implementation. Disposable data centre: technology obsolescence of AI data centre being a concern and difficult maintenance in space imply the single-use purpose of those space data centres. To extend lifetime, space infrastructure will require either refueling or orbit rasie by the servicer, which is going to increase its operational costs The environmental impact on Earth has its own challenges: The environmental impact of launches need to be addressed. Deployment consumes Earth resources that cannot be recovered or recycled. Computers require lots of resources, some of which are strategic. Recycling e-waste is already a challenge on Earth and extremely unlikely in space. Space debris (orbit pollution) is another sustainability challenge for space: Orbits are, like any resources, a limited physical and electromagnetic resource and available for all mankind. The accumulation of satellites on a particular orbit reduces the use of space for other purposes. A consequence of the increase of satellite in orbit is a higher risk of the runaway of space debris (see Kessler syndrome). This means some orbits could become unusable. Latency and bandwidth are constrained in space, and consumes limited electromagnetic resources. Satellite flares could inhibit ground-based and space-based observational astronomy. == Size and power generated == It would take ~1 square mile solar array in earth orbit to produce 1 gigawatt of power at 30% cell efficiency. == Companies pursuing space-based AI infrastructure == Blue Origin Cowboy Space Corporation (formerly Aetherflux) Edge Aerospace Google – Project Suncatcher Nvidia OpenAI SpaceX Starcloud
Read more →
Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware. It is considered one of the major components of Autonomic Networking. == Introduction == One of the most important characteristics of today's Internet that has contributed to its success is its basic design principle: a simple and transparent core with intelligence at the edges (the so-called "end-to-end principle"). Based on this principle, the network carries data without knowing the characteristics of that data (e.g., voice, video, etc.) - only the end-points have application-specific knowledge. If something goes wrong with the data, only the edge may be able to recognize that since it knows about the application and what the expected behavior is. The core has no information about what should happen with that data - it only forwards packets. Although an effective and beneficial attribute, this design principle has also led to many of today's problems, limitations, and frustrations. Currently, it is almost impossible for most end-users to know why certain network-based applications do not work well and what they need to do to make it better. Also, network operators who interact with the core in low-level terms such as router configuration have problems expressing their high-level goals into low-level actions. In high-level terms, this may be summarized as a weak coupling between the network and application layers of the overall system. As a consequence of the Internet end-to-end principle, the network performance experienced by a particular application is difficult to attribute based on the behavior of the individual elements. At any given moment, the measure of performance between any two points is typically unknown and applications must operate blindly. As a further consequence, changes to the configuration of given element, or changes in the end-to-end path, cannot easily be validated. Optimization and provisioning cannot then be automated except against only the simplest design specifications. There is an increasing interest in Autonomic Networking research, and a strong conviction that an evolution from the current networking status quo is necessary. Although to date there have not been any practical implementations demonstrating the benefits of an effective autonomic networking paradigm, there seems to be a consensus as to the characteristics which such implementations would need to demonstrate. These specifically include continuous monitoring, identifying, diagnosing and fixing problems based on high-level policies and objectives. Autognostics, as a major part of the autonomic networking concept, intends to bring networks to a new level of awareness and eliminate the lack of visibility which currently exists in today's networks. == Definition == Autognostics is a new paradigm that describes the capacity for computer networks to be self-aware, in part and as a whole, and dynamically adapt to the applications running on them by autonomously monitoring, identifying, diagnosing, resolving issues, subsequently verifying that any remediation was successful, and reporting the impact with respect to the application's use (i.e., providing visibility into the changes to networks and their effects). Although similar to the concept of network awareness, i.e., the capability of network devices and applications to be aware of network characteristics (see References section below), it is noteworthy that autognostics takes that concept one step further. The main difference is the auto part of autognostics, which entails that network devices are self-aware of network characteristics, and have the capability to adapt themselves as a result of continuous monitoring and diagnostics. == Path to autognostics == Autognostics, or in other words deep self-knowledge, can be best described as the ability of a network to know itself and the applications that run on it. This knowledge is used to autonomously adapt to dynamic network and application conditions such as utilization, capacity, quality of service/application/user experience, etc. In order to achieve autognosis, networks need a means to: Continuously monitor/test the network for application-specific performance Analyze the monitoring/test data to detect problems (e.g., performance degradation) Diagnose, identify and localize sources of degradation Automatically take actions to resolve problems via remediation/provisioning Verify the problems have been resolved (potentially rolling back changes if ineffective) Subsequently, continue to monitor/test for performance
Read more →
Label noise refers to errors or inaccuracies in the class labels of data instances. This is a widespread issue in machine learning datasets, arising from human annotator mistakes, unclear labeling instructions, automated labeling methods, or adversarial attacks in supervised learning. Label noise can be roughly divided into random noise, where labels are flipped independently of input features, and systematic noise, where mislabeling is dependent on certain patterns or biases in the data. Label noise can be damaging to model performance, especially for complex models that may overfit to noisy labels rather than generalizable patterns. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with the effects of label noise, including robust loss functions, noise-tolerant algorithms, data cleaning methods, and semi-supervised learning approaches. To reduce the impact of wrong labels during training, techniques like label smoothing, sample reweighting and using trusted validation sets are used. The role of noise-robust training paradigms and curriculum learning strategies to improve resilience against mislabeled data is also explored in recent research.
Read more →
Adobe Prelude was an ingest and logging software application for tagging media with metadata for searching, post-production workflows, and footage lifecycle management. Adobe Prelude is also made to work closely with Adobe Premiere Pro. It is part of the Adobe Creative Cloud and is geared towards professional video editing alone or with a group. The software also offers features like rough cut creation. A speech transcription feature was removed in December 2014. == History == Adobe announced that on April 23, 2012 Adobe OnLocation would be shut down and Adobe Prelude would launch on May 7, 2012. Adobe stated OnLocation's production was stopping because of the growing trend in the industry toward tapeless, native workflows, Adobe stresses that Adobe Prelude is not a direct replacement for OnLocation. Adobe OnLocation was available in CS5 but not in CS6 and Adobe Prelude is only available in CS6. Adobe still offers technical support for OnLocation. In 2021, Adobe announced they would be discontinuing Adobe Prelude, starting by removing it from their website on September 8, 2021. Support for existing users will continue through September 8, 2024. == Features == Prelude is used to tag media, log data, create and export metadata and generate rough cuts that can be sent to Adobe Premiere Pro. A user can add a tag to a piece of media that will show up on Premiere Pro or if another user opens that media with Prelude. Ingest Footage Prelude can ingest all kinds of file types. Once ingested, Prelude can duplicate, transcode and verify the files. Log Footage Prelude can log data only using the keyboard. Create Rough Cuts Prelude is able to generate Rough Cuts. Rough Cuts are a combination of sub clips that will hold any metadata a user feeds into it. Rough cuts can hold metadata such as markers and comments, and this metadata will stay on this footage. Workflow Accessibility Prelude is an XMP - based open platform that allows for custom integration into many video editing platforms. == Features from OnLocation == Many features from Adobe OnLocation went to Adobe Prelude or Adobe Premiere Pro. Adobe OnLocation thrived on tape - based cameras and setting up a shot before shooting it, with the change in the industry, this problem is irrelevant in post production. Adobe OnLocation also allowed the user to add tags and scripting metadata that would carry over to Premiere Pro. OnLocation also had a Media Browser pane, which is the standard for any Adobe program today, Prelude has this Media Browser as well. == Prelude Live Logger == Prelude Live Logger is an application integrated with Prelude CC. Prelude Live Logger is designed to capture notes to use during video logging and editing while you shoot footage on an iPad's camera. Editors can import and combine this metadata with footage from Prelude throughout editing to facilitate various tasks.
Read more →
In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.
Read more →
Human-centered AI is the initiative at the intersection of the fields of artificial intelligence (AI) and human-computer interaction (HCI) to develop AI systems in a way that prioritizes human values, needs, and general flourishing. Emphasis is placed on the recognition that artificial intelligence systems are rapidly changing, and will continue to influence, many aspects of the human experience, in areas ranging from scientific inquiry, governance and policy, labor and the economy, and creative expression, with an aim set to adapt current developments and guide future developments on a trajectory which is most beneficial to the human population at large, with the goal of augmenting human intelligence and capacities across these areas, as opposed to replacing them. Particular attention is paid to mitigating negative effects of AI automation on the livelihoods of the labor force, the use of AI in healthcare fields, and imbuing AI systems with societal values. Human-centered AI is linked to related endeavors in AI alignment and AI safety, but while these fields primarily focus on mitigating risks posed by AI that is unaligned to human values and/or uncontrollable AI self-development, human-centered AI places significant focus in exploring how AI systems can augment human capacities and serve as collaborators. == Conceptual history == The importance of the alignment of artificial intelligence development towards human values in some sense predates artificial intelligence itself, as before the modern conception of artificial intelligence as coined at the 1956 Dartmouth Workshop, the conception of robots as constructed, autonomous agents entered the cultural consciousness as early as the 1920s, with Karel Capek's Rossum's Universal Robots. The imagined issues relating to robots' aims and values requiring intentional alignment and direction with those of humans followed soon after, most widely known from science fiction author Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, dating to his 1942 short story “Runaround”. Two of the three eponymous laws are directly concerned with robots’ interaction with and positioned deference towards humans, and have in recent times been reexamined in the face of modern AI. In 1985, after artificial intelligence research had taken off and its effects were more acutely conceptualized, Asimov added a Rule Zero, treating robots' relationship with humanity as a whole, distinct from individual humans. While modern artificial intelligence is largely distinct from robotics, the conceptualization of both robots and AI systems as autonomous agents positions this as a foundation for conceptions of human-centered AI. Aside from robots, artificially intelligent autonomous agents in interaction with humans have been conceived of for at least 75 years. In 1950, Alan Turing published his famous "Imitation Game", often also called the Turing Test, a thought experiment that uses human-machine interaction as an assessor for the intelligence of a system. In recent times, artificial intelligence researchers such as Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson have conceived of rapid AI development leading to a so-called "Turing Trap". == Augmentation and automation == A major stated aim of human-centered AI is to promote the development of AI in ways that augment human capabilities, rather than replacing them. To this end, organizations and initiatives that take a human-centered approach to AI development focus on frameworks that encourage collaboration between humans and artificial intelligence systems to build towards even greater progress, rather than attempting to automate tasks currently handled by humans. Such avenues include everything from data visualization for big data, allowing human engineers to better understand extremely large datasets, allowing for the design of better machine learning models to handle them, to AI-powered sensors to monitor vitals, allowing for better responsiveness from healthcare providers. Many human-centered AI initiatives often position it as a better alternative to the apparent mainstream in AI development, which is primarily concerned with automation. Driven by the pressures of the market economy, AI development that does replace tasks currently performed by humans with automated processes is incentivized, as it allows for greater profit margins; this often comes at the detriment of the human whose performance is replaced, thus leading to an environment wherein human workers are outcompeted by AI systems across various service-sector and technology-based industries. At the same time, automation and augmentation are not always incompatible; a major aim of human-centered AI is towards the automation of rote tasks that would otherwise hinder a human’s productivity or creativity, freeing them to direct their energy and intelligence towards higher-level tasks, thus achieving augmentation through automation. Empirical research in pharmaceutical sales has shown that a human-centered implementation - where work procedures, training, and incentives are designed around individuals' cognitive needs - improves augmentation performance, while implementation without such adaptation can worsen outcomes relative to a legacy system. == Research == Much of the work done on human-centered AI comes from research institutes, within universities, companies, and as freestanding organizations. The Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI (abbreviated to HAI) is one such group, engaging academics, industry professionals, and policymakers centered in Stanford University to conduct research and inform policy in various areas in human-centered AI, including on aspects of the intelligence itself, augmentation, and on measuring the impacts of AI systems on sociopolitcal and cultural institutions. Similar groups exist at other universities, including the Chicago Human + AI (CHAI) Lab at the University of Chicago, the HCAI@GU group at the University of Gothenburg, and the Human-Centered AI (HAI) Lab at the University of Oxford. Outside of the academy, companies such as IBM have research initiatives dedicated to advancements in human-centered AI. At Kenyon College, the Integrated Program for Humane Studies (IPHS) launched a human-centered AI program in 2016 integrating artificial intelligence research with humanities and social science inquiry. This approach treats computation and humanistic scholarship as a single unified field of research rather than as separate disciplines requiring collaboration. The program's researchers have published in both AI venues (such as the International Conference on Machine Learning and Frontiers of Computer Science) and humanities journals (such as PMLA and Poetics Today), and the lab was selected in December 2025 by Schmidt Sciences for its Humanities and AI Virtual Institute to apply AI methods to cultural heritage preservation.
Read more →
Progress in artificial intelligence (AI) refers to the advances, milestones, and breakthroughs that have been achieved in the field of artificial intelligence over time. AI is a branch of computer science that aims to create machines and systems capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. AI applications have been used in a wide range of fields including medical diagnosis, finance, robotics, law, video games, agriculture, and scientific discovery. The society as a whole is looking for artificial intelligence to be on a key factor in the upcming years because of its potential. However, many AI applications are not perceived as AI: "A lot of cutting-edge AI has filtered into general applications, often without being called AI because once something becomes useful enough and common enough it's not labeled AI anymore." "Many thousands of AI applications are deeply embedded in the infrastructure of every industry." In the late 1990s and early 2000s, AI technology became widely used as elements of larger systems, but the field was rarely credited for these successes at the time. Kaplan and Haenlein structure artificial intelligence along three evolutionary stages: Artificial narrow intelligence – AI capable only of specific tasks; Artificial general intelligence – AI with ability in several areas, and able to autonomously solve problems they were never even designed for; Artificial superintelligence – AI capable of general tasks, including scientific creativity, social skills, and general wisdom. To allow comparison with human performance, artificial intelligence can be evaluated on constrained and well-defined problems. Such tests have been termed subject-matter expert Turing tests. Also, smaller problems provide more achievable goals and there are an ever-increasing number of positive results. In 2023, humans still substantially outperformed both GPT-4 and other models tested on the ConceptARC benchmark. Those models scored 60% on most, and 77% on one category, while humans scored 91% on all and 97% on one category. However, later research in 2025 showed that human-generated output grids were only accurate 73% of the time, while AI models available that year managed to score above 77%. == History == Increasing, promoting or constraining AI progress has often be done via controlling or increasing the amount of compute. == Current performance in specific areas == There are many useful abilities that can be described as showing some form of intelligence. This gives better insight into the comparative success of artificial intelligence in different areas. AI, like electricity or the steam engine, is a general-purpose technology. There is no consensus on how to characterize which tasks AI tends to excel at. Some versions of Moravec's paradox observe that humans are more likely to outperform machines in areas such as physical dexterity that have been the direct target of natural selection. While projects such as AlphaZero have succeeded in generating their own knowledge from scratch, many other machine learning projects require large training datasets. Researcher Andrew Ng has suggested, as a "highly imperfect rule of thumb", that "almost anything a typical human can do with less than one second of mental thought, we can probably now or in the near future automate using AI." Games provide a high-profile benchmark for assessing rates of progress; many games have a large professional player base and a well-established competitive rating system. AlphaGo brought the era of classical board-game benchmarks to a close when Artificial Intelligence proved their competitive edge over humans in 2016. Deep Mind's AlphaGo AI software program defeated the world's best professional Go Player Lee Sedol. Games of imperfect knowledge provide new challenges to AI in the area of game theory; the most prominent milestone in this area was brought to a close by Libratus' poker victory in 2017. E-sports continue to provide additional benchmarks; Facebook AI, Deepmind, and others have engaged with the popular StarCraft franchise of videogames. Broad classes of outcome for an AI test may be given as: optimal: it is not possible to perform better (note: some of these entries were solved by humans) super-human: performs better than all humans high-human: performs better than most humans par-human: performs similarly to most humans sub-human: performs worse than most humans === Optimal === Tic-tac-toe Connect Four: 1988 Checkers (aka 8x8 draughts): Weakly solved (2007) Rubik's Cube: Mostly solved (2010) Heads-up limit hold'em poker: Statistically optimal in the sense that "a human lifetime of play is not sufficient to establish with statistical significance that the strategy is not an exact solution" (2015) === Super-human === Othello (aka reversi): c. 1997 Scrabble: 2006 Backgammon: c. 1995–2002 Chess: Supercomputer (c. 1997); Personal computer (c. 2006); Mobile phone (c. 2009); Computer defeats human + computer (c. 2017) Jeopardy!: Question answering, although the machine did not use speech recognition (2011) Arimaa: 2015 Shogi: c. 2017 Go: 2017 Heads-up no-limit hold'em poker: 2017 Six-player no-limit hold'em poker: 2019 Gran Turismo Sport: 2022 === High-human === Crosswords: c. 2012 Freeciv: 2016 Dota 2: 2018 Bridge card-playing: According to a 2009 review, "the best programs are attaining expert status as (bridge) card players", excluding bidding. StarCraft II: 2019 Mahjong: 2019 Stratego: 2022 No-Press Diplomacy: 2022 Hanabi: 2022 Natural language processing === Par-human === Optical character recognition for ISO 1073-1:1976 and similar special characters. Classification of images Handwriting recognition Facial recognition Visual question answering SQuAD 2.0 English reading-comprehension benchmark (2019) SuperGLUE English-language understanding benchmark (2020) Some school science exams (2019) Some tasks based on Raven's Progressive Matrices Many Atari 2600 games (2015) === Sub-human === Optical character recognition for printed text (nearing par-human for Latin-script typewritten text) Object recognition Various robotics tasks that may require advances in robot hardware as well as AI, including: Stable bipedal locomotion: Bipedal robots can walk, but are less stable than human walkers (as of 2017) Humanoid soccer Speech recognition: "nearly equal to human performance" (2017) Explainability. Current medical systems can diagnose certain medical conditions well, but cannot explain to users why they made the diagnosis. Many tests of fluid intelligence (2020) Bongard visual cognition problems, such as the Bongard-LOGO benchmark (2020) Visual Commonsense Reasoning (VCR) benchmark (as of 2020) Stock market prediction: Financial data collection and processing using Machine Learning algorithms Angry Birds video game, as of 2020 Various tasks that are difficult to solve without contextual knowledge, including: Translation Word-sense disambiguation == Proposed tests of artificial intelligence == In his famous Turing test, Alan Turing picked language, the defining feature of human beings, for its basis. The Turing test is now considered too exploitable to be a meaningful benchmark. The Feigenbaum test, proposed by the inventor of expert systems, tests a machine's knowledge and expertise about a specific subject. A paper by Jim Gray of Microsoft in 2003 suggested extending the Turing test to speech understanding, speaking and recognizing objects and behavior. Proposed "universal intelligence" tests aim to compare how well machines, humans, and even non-human animals perform on problem sets that are generic as possible. At an extreme, the test suite can contain every possible problem, weighted by Kolmogorov complexity; however, these problem sets tend to be dominated by impoverished pattern-matching exercises where a tuned AI can easily exceed human performance levels. == Exams == According to OpenAI, in 2023 GPT-4 achieved high scores on several standardized and professional examinations, including around the 90th percentile on the Uniform Bar Exam, the 89th percentile on the mathematics section of the SAT, the 93rd percentile on SAT Reading and Writing, the 54th percentile on the analytical writing section of the GRE, the 88th percentile on GRE quantitative reasoning, and the 99th percentile on GRE verbal reasoning. OpenAI also reported that GPT-4 scored in the 99th to 100th percentile on the 2020 USA Biology Olympiad semifinal exam and earned top scores on several AP exams. Independent researchers found in 2023 that ChatGPT based on GPT-3.5 performed "at or near the passing threshold" on all three parts of the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), suggesting that large language models could reach passing-level performance on some medical knowledge assessments even without domain-specific fine-tuning. GPT-3.5 was also reported to attain a low but passing grade on examinations for four law school courses at the University of Minnes
Read more →
A separable filter in image processing can be written as product of two more simple filters. Typically a 2-dimensional convolution operation is separated into two 1-dimensional filters. This reduces the computational costs on an N × M {\displaystyle N\times M} image with a m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} filter from O ( M ⋅ N ⋅ m ⋅ n ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(M\cdot N\cdot m\cdot n)} down to O ( M ⋅ N ⋅ ( m + n ) ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(M\cdot N\cdot (m+n))} . == Examples == 1. A two-dimensional smoothing filter: 1 3 [ 1 1 1 ] ∗ 1 3 [ 1 1 1 ] = 1 9 [ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ] {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{3}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\1\\1\end{bmatrix}}{\frac {1}{3}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&1&1\end{bmatrix}}={\frac {1}{9}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&1&1\\1&1&1\\1&1&1\end{bmatrix}}} 2. Another two-dimensional smoothing filter with stronger weight in the middle: 1 4 [ 1 2 1 ] ∗ 1 4 [ 1 2 1 ] = 1 16 [ 1 2 1 2 4 2 1 2 1 ] {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{4}}{\begin{bmatrix}1\\2\\1\end{bmatrix}}{\frac {1}{4}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&2&1\end{bmatrix}}={\frac {1}{16}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&2&1\\2&4&2\\1&2&1\end{bmatrix}}} 3. The Sobel operator, used commonly for edge detection: [ 1 2 1 ] ∗ [ 1 0 − 1 ] = [ 1 0 − 1 2 0 − 2 1 0 − 1 ] {\displaystyle {\begin{bmatrix}1\\2\\1\end{bmatrix}}{\begin{bmatrix}1&0&-1\end{bmatrix}}={\begin{bmatrix}1&0&-1\\2&0&-2\\1&0&-1\end{bmatrix}}} This works also for the Prewitt operator. In the examples, there is a cost of 3 multiply–accumulate operations for each vector which gives six total (horizontal and vertical). This is compared to the nine operations for the full 3x3 matrix. Another notable example of a separable filter is the Gaussian blur whose performance can be greatly improved the bigger the convolution window becomes.
Read more →
Edge inference is the process of running machine learning or deep learning models on local devices (edge devices) such as smartphones, IoT devices, embedded systems, and edge servers instead of centralized cloud computing infrastructure. A key feature of edge computing is edge inference, which allows for real-time data processing, low latency, and improved privacy by reducing the amount of data sent to remote servers.
Read more →
Neuro-symbolic AI is a subfield of artificial intelligence that integrates neural methods (e.g., neural networks and deep learning) with symbolic methods (e.g., formal logic, knowledge representation, and automated reasoning). The goal is to combine the strengths of both approaches, resulting in AI systems that can be trained from raw data and demonstrate robustness against outliers or errors in the base data, while preserving explainability, explicit use of expert knowledge, and explicit cognitive reasoning. As argued by Leslie Valiant and others, the effective construction of rich computational cognitive models demands the combination of symbolic reasoning and efficient machine learning. Gary Marcus argued, "We cannot construct rich cognitive models in an adequate, automated way without the triumvirate of hybrid architecture, rich prior knowledge, and sophisticated techniques for reasoning." Further, "To build a robust, knowledge-driven approach to AI we must have the machinery of symbol manipulation in our toolkit. Too much of useful knowledge is abstract to make do without tools that represent and manipulate abstraction, and to date, the only known machinery that can manipulate such abstract knowledge reliably is the apparatus of symbol manipulation." Angelo Dalli, Henry Kautz, Francesca Rossi, and Bart Selman also argued for such a synthesis. Their arguments attempt to address the two kinds of thinking, as discussed in Daniel Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow. It describes cognition as encompassing two components: System 1 is fast, reflexive, intuitive, and unconscious. System 2 is slower, step-by-step, and explicit. System 1 is used for pattern recognition. System 2 handles planning, deduction, and deliberative thinking. In this view, deep learning best handles the first kind of cognition, while symbolic reasoning best handles the second kind. Both are necessary for the development of a robust and reliable AI system capable of learning, reasoning, and interacting with humans to accept advice and answer questions. Since the 1990s, dual-process models with explicit references to the two contrasting systems have been the focus of research in both the fields of AI and cognitive science by numerous researchers. In 2025, the adoption of neurosymbolic AI, an approach that integrates neural networks with symbolic reasoning, increased in response to the need to address hallucination issues in large language models. For example, Amazon implemented Neurosymbolic AI in its Vulcan warehouse robots and Rufus shopping assistant to enhance accuracy and decision-making. == Approaches == Approaches for integration are diverse. Henry Kautz's taxonomy of neuro-symbolic architectures follows, along with some examples: Symbolic Neural symbolic is the current approach of many neural models in natural language processing, where words or subword tokens are the ultimate input and output of large language models. Examples include BERT, RoBERTa, and GPT-3. Symbolic[Neural] is exemplified by AlphaGo, where symbolic techniques are used to invoke neural techniques. In this case, the symbolic approach is Monte Carlo tree search and the neural techniques learn how to evaluate game positions. Neural | Symbolic uses a neural architecture to interpret perceptual data as symbols and relationships that are reasoned about symbolically. Neural-Concept Learner is an example. Neural: Symbolic → Neural relies on symbolic reasoning to generate or label training data that is subsequently learned by a deep learning model, e.g., to train a neural model for symbolic computation by using a Macsyma-like symbolic mathematics system to create or label examples. NeuralSymbolic uses a neural net that is generated from symbolic rules. An example is the Neural Theorem Prover, which constructs a neural network from an AND-OR proof tree generated from knowledge base rules and terms. Logic Tensor Networks also fall into this category. Neural[Symbolic] according to Kautz, this approach embeds true symbolic reasoning inside a neural network. These are tightly-coupled neural-symbolic systems, in which the logical inference rules are internal to the neural network. This way, the neural network internally computes the inference from the premises and learns to reason based on logical inference systems. Early work on connectionist modal and temporal logics by Garcez, Lamb, and Gabbay is aligned with this approach. These categories are not exhaustive, as they do not consider multi-agent systems. In 2005, Bader and Hitzler presented a more fine-grained categorization that took into account, e.g., whether the use of symbols included logic and, if so, whether the logic was propositional or first-order logic. The 2005 categorization and Kautz's taxonomy above are compared and contrasted in a 2021 article. Sepp Hochreiter argued that Graph Neural Networks "...are the predominant models of neural-symbolic computing" since "[t]hey describe the properties of molecules, simulate social networks, or predict future states in physical and engineering applications with particle-particle interactions." == Artificial general intelligence == Gary Marcus argues that "...hybrid architectures that combine learning and symbol manipulation are necessary for robust intelligence, but not sufficient", and that there are ...four cognitive prerequisites for building robust artificial intelligence: hybrid architectures that combine large-scale learning with the representational and computational powers of symbol manipulation, large-scale knowledge bases—likely leveraging innate frameworks—that incorporate symbolic knowledge along with other forms of knowledge, reasoning mechanisms capable of leveraging those knowledge bases in tractable ways, and rich cognitive models that work together with those mechanisms and knowledge bases. This echoes earlier calls for hybrid models as early as the 1990s. == History == Garcez and Lamb described research in this area as ongoing, at least since the 1990s. During that period, the terms symbolic and sub-symbolic AI were popular. A series of workshops on neuro-symbolic AI has been held annually since 2005 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence. In the early 1990s, an initial set of workshops on this topic were organized. == Research == Key research questions remain, such as: What is the best way to integrate neural and symbolic architectures? How should symbolic structures be represented within neural networks and extracted from them? How should common-sense knowledge be learned and reasoned about? How can abstract knowledge that is hard to encode logically be handled? == Implementations == Implementations of neuro-symbolic approaches include: AllegroGraph: an integrated Knowledge Graph based platform for neuro-symbolic application development. Scallop: a language based on Datalog that supports differentiable logical and relational reasoning. Scallop can be integrated in Python and with a PyTorch learning module. Logic Tensor Networks: encode logical formulas as neural networks and simultaneously learn term encodings, term weights, and formula weights. DeepProbLog: combines neural networks with the probabilistic reasoning of ProbLog. Abductive Learning: integrates machine learning and logical reasoning in a balanced-loop via abductive reasoning, enabling them to work together in a mutually beneficial way. SymbolicAI: a compositional differentiable programming library.
Read more →
Artificial intelligence in education (often abbreviated as AIEd) is a subfield of educational technology that studies how to use artificial intelligence to create learning environments. Considerations in the field include data-driven decision-making, AI ethics, data privacy and AI literacy. Concerns include the potential for cheating, over-reliance, equity of access, reduced critical thinking, and the perpetuation of misinformation and bias. == History == Efforts to integrate AI into educational contexts have often followed technological advancement in the history of artificial intelligence. In the 1960s, educators and researchers began developing computer-based instruction systems, such as PLATO, developed by the University of Illinois. In the 1970s and 1980s, intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) were being adapted for classroom instruction. The International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society was founded in 1993. Coinciding with the AI boom of the 2020s, the use of large language models in the global north has been promoted and funded by venture capital and big tech. Companies creating AI services have targeted students and educational institutions as customers. Similarly, pre-AI boom educational companies have expanded their use of AI technologies. These commercial incentives for AIEd use may be related to a potential AI bubble. In the U.S., bipartisan support of AI development in K-12 education has been expressed, but specific implementations and best practices remain contentious. == Theory == AIEd applies theory from education studies, machine learning, and related fields. A 2019 review of the previous decade of studies found that most research prioritized technological design over pedagogical integration. Ouyang and Jiao (2021) propose three paradigms for AI in education, which follow roughly from least to most learner-centered and from requiring least to most technical complexity from the AI systems: AI-directed, learner-as-recipient: AIEd systems present a pre-set curriculum based on statistical patterns that do not adjust to learner's feedback. AI-supported, learner-as-collaborator: Systems that incorporate responsiveness to learner's feedback through, for example, natural language processing, wherein AI can support knowledge construction. AI-empowered, learner-as-leader: This model seeks to position AI as a supplement to human intelligence wherein learners take agency and AI provides consistent and actionable feedback. Some scholars place AI in education within a socio-technical framework. This positions AI alongside other emerging educational technologies, such as computing, the internet, and social media. The framework of Tsao, Heinrichs and Camit (2025) draws on new materialism and posthumanism, specifically Donna Haraway's concept of sympoiesis (making-with). This perspective views learning as an entanglement of human and non-human actors (students, teachers, and AI algorithms), where knowledge is co-composed in contact zones between human context and algorithmic prediction. AI agents have been trained on biased datasets, and thus continue to perpetuate societal biases. Since LLMs were created to produce human-like text, algorithmic bias can be introduced and reproduced. AI's data processing and monitoring reinforce neoliberal approaches to education rather than addressing inequalities. == Applications == Uses of generative AI chatbots in education have included assessment and feedback, machine translations, proof-reading exam question generation and copy editing, or as virtual assistants. Emotional AI in education is the study and development of systems that can detect learners' emotions or provide emotional support in learning. == Usage == === Schools and educators === Following the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, some schools and large school districts blocked access to the site and issued warnings that the use of such tools would be seen as cheating. Governmental and non-governmental organizations such as UNESCO, Article 4 of the European Union's AI Act, and the U.S. Department of Education have published reports advocating for specific AIEd approaches. National higher-education bodies have also published guidance on generative AI, including Ireland's Higher Education Authority, which issued a policy framework for higher education teaching and learning in December 2025. In 2024, UNESCO released updated global guidance for generative AI in education, emphasizing ethical use, teacher training, and data protection to ensure responsible integration of AI tools in learning environments. According to Taso (2025), policy implementation in higher education is interpreted and enacted differently by various organizations. These decentralized policies can lead to inconsistent enforcement and confusion among students regarding what constitutes acceptable use, with the burden of ethical navigation falling on individual teachers and students. AI integration in classrooms has created new forms of invisible labour for educators, who must navigate ambiguous policies, redesign assessments to be AI-resilient, and adjudicate potential academic integrity violations. The use of AI detection tools has also been criticised for creating an adversarial relationship between students and institutions, where students may be falsely accused of misconduct based on probabilistic software. AIEd advocates say that efforts should be made towards increasing global accessibility and training educators to serve underprivileged areas. === Students === Reliance on generative AI has been linked with reduced academic self-esteem and performance, and heightened learned helplessness. Algorithm errors and hallucinations are common flaws in AI agents, making them less trustworthy and reliable. According to a 2025 survey from Inside Higher Ed, 85% of higher education students use generative AI technology in some way, with 25% using AI to complete assignments for them. The most common reason cited for using AI to cheat was pressure to get high grades. 97% of students wanted some form of action from schools on the threat to academic integrity caused by AI, with the most popular options being clearer policies and more education about ethical uses of AI. In September 2025, The Atlantic published an op-ed from a high school senior arguing that the normalization of AI cheating was eroding critical thinking, academic integrity, creativity, and the shared student experience.
Read more →
Spectral shape analysis relies on the spectrum (eigenvalues and/or eigenfunctions) of the Laplace–Beltrami operator to compare and analyze geometric shapes. Since the spectrum of the Laplace–Beltrami operator is invariant under isometries, it is well suited for the analysis or retrieval of non-rigid shapes, i.e. bendable objects such as humans, animals, plants, etc. == Laplace == The Laplace–Beltrami operator is involved in many important differential equations, such as the heat equation and the wave equation. It can be defined on a Riemannian manifold as the divergence of the gradient of a real-valued function f: Δ f := div grad f . {\displaystyle \Delta f:=\operatorname {div} \operatorname {grad} f.} Its spectral components can be computed by solving the Helmholtz equation (or Laplacian eigenvalue problem): Δ φ i + λ i φ i = 0. {\displaystyle \Delta \varphi _{i}+\lambda _{i}\varphi _{i}=0.} The solutions are the eigenfunctions φ i {\displaystyle \varphi _{i}} (modes) and corresponding eigenvalues λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} , representing a diverging sequence of positive real numbers. The first eigenvalue is zero for closed domains or when using the Neumann boundary condition. For some shapes, the spectrum can be computed analytically (e.g. rectangle, flat torus, cylinder, disk or sphere). For the sphere, for example, the eigenfunctions are the spherical harmonics. The most important properties of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are that they are isometry invariants. In other words, if the shape is not stretched (e.g. a sheet of paper bent into the third dimension), the spectral values will not change. Bendable objects, like animals, plants and humans, can move into different body postures with only minimal stretching at the joints. The resulting shapes are called near-isometric and can be compared using spectral shape analysis. == Discretizations == Geometric shapes are often represented as 2D curved surfaces, 2D surface meshes (usually triangle meshes) or 3D solid objects (e.g. using voxels or tetrahedra meshes). The Helmholtz equation can be solved for all these cases. If a boundary exists, e.g. a square, or the volume of any 3D geometric shape, boundary conditions need to be specified. Several discretizations of the Laplace operator exist (see Discrete Laplace operator) for the different types of geometry representations. Many of these operators do not approximate well the underlying continuous operator. == Spectral shape descriptors == === ShapeDNA and its variants === The ShapeDNA is one of the first spectral shape descriptors. It is the normalized beginning sequence of the eigenvalues of the Laplace–Beltrami operator. Its main advantages are the simple representation (a vector of numbers) and comparison, scale invariance, and in spite of its simplicity a very good performance for shape retrieval of non-rigid shapes. Competitors of shapeDNA include singular values of Geodesic Distance Matrix (SD-GDM) and Reduced BiHarmonic Distance Matrix (R-BiHDM). However, the eigenvalues are global descriptors, therefore the shapeDNA and other global spectral descriptors cannot be used for local or partial shape analysis. === Global point signature (GPS) === The global point signature at a point x {\displaystyle x} is a vector of scaled eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator computed at x {\displaystyle x} (i.e. the spectral embedding of the shape). The GPS is a global feature in the sense that it cannot be used for partial shape matching. === Heat kernel signature (HKS) === The heat kernel signature makes use of the eigen-decomposition of the heat kernel: h t ( x , y ) = ∑ i = 0 ∞ exp ( − λ i t ) φ i ( x ) φ i ( y ) . {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,y)=\sum _{i=0}^{\infty }\exp(-\lambda _{i}t)\varphi _{i}(x)\varphi _{i}(y).} For each point on the surface the diagonal of the heat kernel h t ( x , x ) {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,x)} is sampled at specific time values t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} and yields a local signature that can also be used for partial matching or symmetry detection. === Wave kernel signature (WKS) === The WKS follows a similar idea to the HKS, replacing the heat equation with the Schrödinger wave equation. === Improved wave kernel signature (IWKS) === The IWKS improves the WKS for non-rigid shape retrieval by introducing a new scaling function to the eigenvalues and aggregating a new curvature term. === Spectral graph wavelet signature (SGWS) === SGWS is a local descriptor that is not only isometric invariant, but also compact, easy to compute and combines the advantages of both band-pass and low-pass filters. An important facet of SGWS is the ability to combine the advantages of WKS and HKS into a single signature, while allowing a multiresolution representation of shapes. == Spectral Matching == The spectral decomposition of the graph Laplacian associated with complex shapes (see Discrete Laplace operator) provides eigenfunctions (modes) which are invariant to isometries. Each vertex on the shape could be uniquely represented with a combinations of the eigenmodal values at each point, sometimes called spectral coordinates: s ( x ) = ( φ 1 ( x ) , φ 2 ( x ) , … , φ N ( x ) ) for vertex x . {\displaystyle s(x)=(\varphi _{1}(x),\varphi _{2}(x),\ldots ,\varphi _{N}(x)){\text{ for vertex }}x.} Spectral matching consists of establishing the point correspondences by pairing vertices on different shapes that have the most similar spectral coordinates. Early work focused on sparse correspondences for stereoscopy. Computational efficiency now enables dense correspondences on full meshes, for instance between cortical surfaces. Spectral matching could also be used for complex non-rigid image registration, which is notably difficult when images have very large deformations. Such image registration methods based on spectral eigenmodal values indeed capture global shape characteristics, and contrast with conventional non-rigid image registration methods which are often based on local shape characteristics (e.g., image gradients).
Read more →
An artificial brain (or artificial mind) is software and hardware with cognitive abilities similar to those of the animal or human brain. Research investigating "artificial brains" and brain emulation plays three important roles in science: An ongoing attempt by neuroscientists to understand how the human brain works, known as cognitive neuroscience. A thought experiment in the philosophy of artificial intelligence, demonstrating that it is possible, at least in theory, to create a machine that has all the capabilities of a human being. A long-term project to create machines exhibiting behavior comparable to those of animals with complex central nervous system such as mammals and most particularly humans. The ultimate goal of creating a machine exhibiting human-like behavior or intelligence is sometimes called strong AI. An example of the first objective is the project reported by Aston University in Birmingham, England where researchers are using biological cells to create "neurospheres" (small clusters of neurons) in order to develop new treatments for diseases including Alzheimer's, motor neurone and Parkinson's disease. The second objective is a reply to arguments such as John Searle's Chinese room argument, Hubert Dreyfus's critique of AI or Roger Penrose's argument in The Emperor's New Mind. These critics argued that there are aspects of human consciousness or expertise that can not be simulated by machines. One reply to their arguments is that the biological processes inside the brain can be simulated to any degree of accuracy. This reply was made as early as 1950, by Alan Turing in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". The third objective is generally called artificial general intelligence by researchers. However, Ray Kurzweil prefers the term "strong AI". In his book The Singularity is Near, he focuses on whole brain emulation using conventional computing machines as an approach to implementing artificial brains, and claims (on grounds of computer power continuing an exponential growth trend) that this could be done by 2025. Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain project (which is attempting brain emulation), made a similar claim (2020) at the Oxford TED conference in 2009. == Approaches to brain simulation == W. Ross Ashby's pioneering work in cybernetics provided an early mathematical framework for understanding adaptive brain-like systems. In his 1952 book Design for a Brain, Ashby proposed that the brain could be modeled as an ultrastable system that maintains equilibrium through continuous adaptation to environmental perturbations. His approach used differential equations and state-space models to describe how neural systems could exhibit purposeful behavior through feedback mechanisms. Ashby's homeostat, a physical machine built in 1948, demonstrated these principles through an electromechanical device with four interconnected units that automatically adjusted their parameters to maintain stability when disturbed. The homeostat represented one of the first attempts to build an artificial system exhibiting brain-like adaptive behavior, influencing subsequent work in adaptive systems, neural networks, and artificial intelligence. Although direct human brain emulation using artificial neural networks on a high-performance computing engine is a commonly discussed approach, there are other approaches. An alternative artificial brain implementation could be based on Holographic Neural Technology (HNeT) non linear phase coherence/decoherence principles. The analogy has been made to quantum processes through the core synaptic algorithm which has strong similarities to the quantum mechanical wave equation. EvBrain is a form of evolutionary software that can evolve "brainlike" neural networks, such as the network immediately behind the retina. In November 2008, IBM received a US$4.9 million grant from the Pentagon for research into creating intelligent computers. The Blue Brain project is being conducted with the assistance of IBM in Lausanne. The project is based on the premise that it is possible to artificially link the neurons "in the computer" by placing thirty million synapses in their proper three-dimensional position. Some proponents of strong AI speculated in 2009 that computers in connection with Blue Brain and Soul Catcher may exceed human intellectual capacity by around 2015, and that it is likely that we will be able to download the human brain at some time around 2050. While Blue Brain is able to represent complex neural connections on the large scale, the project does not achieve the link between brain activity and behaviors executed by the brain. In 2012, project Spaun (Semantic Pointer Architecture Unified Network) attempted to model multiple parts of the human brain through large-scale representations of neural connections that generate complex behaviors in addition to mapping. Spaun's design recreates elements of human brain anatomy. The model, consisting of approximately 2.5 million neurons, includes features of the visual and motor cortices, GABAergic and dopaminergic connections, the ventral tegmental area (VTA), substantia nigra, and others. The design allows for several functions in response to eight tasks, using visual inputs of typed or handwritten characters and outputs carried out by a mechanical arm. Spaun's functions include copying a drawing, recognizing images, and counting. There are good reasons to believe that, regardless of implementation strategy, the predictions of realising artificial brains in the near future are optimistic. In particular brains (including the human brain) and cognition are not currently well understood, and the scale of computation required is unknown. Another near term limitation is that all current approaches for brain simulation require orders of magnitude larger power consumption compared with a human brain. The human brain consumes about 20 W of power, whereas current supercomputers may use as much as 1 MW—i.e., an order of 100,000 more. == Artificial brain thought experiment == Some critics of brain simulation believe that it is simpler to create general intelligent action directly without imitating nature. Some commentators have used the analogy that early attempts to construct flying machines modeled them after birds, but that modern aircraft do not look like birds.
Read more →
The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis is a report authored by James van Geelen and Alap Shah and published by Citrini Research in February 2026, on the impact of artificial intelligence on humanity's future. Written in the form of a scenario analysis, it was viewed millions of times online and reportedly caused a fall in the stock market prices of major tech and financial firms. It also received criticism among others, for its allegedly flawed economic logic. The 'thought exercise', as the authors called it, painted a gloomy picture for the near future, where outputs keep growing while consumer's ability to spend collapses. "...driven by ai agents that don’t sleep, take sick days or require health insurance”, "outputs that are shown in national accounts increases, "but never circulates through the real economy"(which the report calls 'Ghost GDP'), the authors argued. In other words, the authors predict a scenario where the owners of the AI firms will accumulate a vast fortune but there will be scant demand from consumers as AI would cause massive unemployment. The authors caution the reader that what they make is a scenario and not a prediction. In the scenario they visualise, any service whose value proposition is “I will navigate complexity that you find tedious” is getting disrupted. The reports argues that the unique ability of human beings to analyse, decide, create, persuade, and coordinate was “the thing that could not be replicated at scale,” and call the historical scarcity of this precious entity 'friction'. When this friction becomes zero, a gamut of changes occur which then triggers a cascading of changes across the economy. ”Travel booking platforms are an early casualty; Financial advice. tax prep., and routine legal work follow suit. National unemployment rate go as high 10.2% and the S&P 500 goes for a massive 38% peak-to-trough crash. In contrast to the previous technological revolutions the high-earning professionals suffers more and get forced to take up roles in the gig economy. Labour supply becomes abundant and this cuts wages all across the economy. The dent in income for the employees then affects other sectors of the economy such as the residential mortgage market. The losses for the software companies triggers loan defaults and heralds peril for the private credit sector.
Read more →