AI Driven Spreadsheet

AI Driven Spreadsheet — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  2018 Google data breach

  The 2018 Google data breach was a major data privacy scandal in which the Google+ API exposed the private data of over five hundred thousand users. Google+ managers first noticed harvesting of personal data in March 2018, during a review following the Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal. The bug, despite having been fixed immediately, exposed the private data of approximately 500,000 Google+ users to the public. Google did not reveal the leak to the network's users. In November 2018, another data breach occurred following an update to the Google+ API. Although Google found no evidence of failure, approximately 52.5 million personal profiles were potentially exposed. In August 2019, Google declared a shutdown of Google+ due to low use and technological challenges. == Overview of Google+ == Google+ was launched in June 2011 as an invite-only social network, but was opened for public access later in the year. It was managed by Vic Gundotra. Similar to Facebook, Google+ also included key features Circles, Hangouts and Sparks. Circles let users personalize their social groups by sorting friends into different categories. Once allowed into a Circle, users could regulate information in their individual spaces. Hangouts included video chatting and instant messaging between users. Sparks allowed Google to track users' past searches to find news and content related to their interests. Google+ was linked to other Google services, such as YouTube, Google Drive and Gmail, giving it access to roughly 2 billion user accounts. However, less than 400 million consumers actively used Google+, with 90% of those users using it for less than five seconds. == The breaches == In March 2018, Google developers found a data breach within the Google+ People API in which external apps acquired access to Profile fields that were not marked as public. According to The Wall Street Journal, Google didn’t disclose the breach when it was first discovered in March to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage. 500,000 Google+ accounts were included in the breach, which allowed 438 external apps unauthorized access to private users' names, emails, addresses, occupations, genders and ages. This information was available between 2015 and 2018. Google found no evidence of any user's personal information being misused, nor that any third-party app developers were aware of the leak. In November 2018, a software update created another data breach within the Google+ API. The bug impacted 52.5 million users, where, similarly to the March breach, unauthorized apps were able to access Google+ profiles, including users' names, email addresses, occupations and ages. Apps could not access financial information, national identification, numbers, or passwords. Blog posts, messages and phone numbers also remained inaccessible if marked as private. Unlike the previous breach, access was only available for six days before Google+ learned of the breach. Once more, Google+ found no evidence of data being misused by third-party developers. == Responses == In October 2018, the Wall Street Journal published an article outlining the initial breach and Google's decision to not disclose it to users. At the time, there was no federal law that required Google to inform their consumers of data breaches. Google+ originally did not disclose the breach out of fears of being compared to Facebook's recent data leak and subsequent loss of consumer confidence. In response to the Wall Street Journal article, Google announced the shutdown of Google+ in August 2019. After the second data leak, the date was moved to April 2019. In response to the data breach, enterprise consumers were notified of the bug's impact and given instructions on how to save, download and delete their data prior to the Google+ shut down. Google's Privacy and Data Protection Office found no misuse of user data. Prior to the Google+ shutdown, Google set a 10-month period in which users could download and migrate their data. After the 10-month period, user content was deleted. On 4 February 2019, consumers were no longer able to create new Google+ profiles. Google shut down Google+ APIs on 7 March 2019 to ensure that developers did not continue to rely on the APIs prior to the Google+ shutdown. Google is the principal entity of its parent company, Alphabet Inc. After the data breach, Alphabet Inc. share prices fell by 1% to $1,157.06 on 9 October 2018 after an earlier drop of $1,135.40 that morning, the lowest price since 5 July 2018. After the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, share prices dropped as low as 2.1% in two days on 10 October 2018. Share prices steadily increased from this point and met the 8 October 2018 share price on 5 February 2019. Google planned to rebuild Google+ as a corporate enterprise network. Google Play will now assess which apps can ask for permission to access the user's SMS data. Only the default app for telephone distribution is able to make requests. Prior to the data breaches, apps were able to request access to all of a consumer's data simultaneously. Now, each app must request permission for each aspect of a consumer's profile.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial wisdom

  Artificial wisdom (AW) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system which is able to display the human traits of wisdom and morals while being able to contemplate its own “endpoint”. Artificial wisdom can be described as artificial intelligence reaching the top-level of decision-making when confronted with the most complex challenging situations. The term artificial wisdom is used when the "intelligence" is based on more than by chance collecting and interpreting data, but by design enriched with smart and conscience strategies that wise people would use. == Overview == The goal of artificial wisdom is to create artificial intelligence that can successfully replicate the “uniquely human trait[s]” of having wisdom and morals as closely as possible. Thus, artificial wisdom, must “incorporate [the] ethical and moral considerations” of the data it uses. There are also many significant ethical and legal implications of AW which are compounded by the rapid advances in AI and related technologies alongside the lack of the development of ethics, guidelines, and regulations without the oversight of any kind of overarching advisory board. Additionally, there are challenges in how to develop, test, and implement AW in real world scenarios. Existing tests do not test the internal thought process by which a computer system reaches its conclusion, only the result of said process. When examining computer-aided wisdom; the partnership of artificial intelligence and contemplative neuroscience, concerns regarding the future of artificial intelligence shift to a more optimistic viewpoint. This artificial wisdom forms the basis of Louis Molnar's monographic article on artificial philosophy, where he coined the term and proposes how artificial intelligence might view its place in the grand scheme of things. == Definitions == There are no universal or standardized definitions for human intelligence, artificial intelligence, human wisdom, or artificial wisdom. However, the DIKW pyramid, describes the continuum of relationship between data, information, knowledge, and wisdom, puts wisdom at the highest level in its hierarchy. Gottfredson defines intelligence as “the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience”. Definitions for wisdom typically include requiring: The ability for emotional regulation, Pro-social behaviors (e.g., empathy, compassion, and altruism), Self-reflection, “A balance between decisiveness and acceptance of uncertainty and diversity of perspectives, and social advising.” As previously defined, Artificial Wisdom would then be an AI system which is able to solve problems via “an understanding of…context, ethics and moral principles,” rather than simple pre-defined inputs or “learned patterns.” Some scientists have also considered the field of artificial consciousness. However, Jeste states that “…it is generally agreed that only humans can have consciousness, autonomy, will, and theory of mind.” An artificially wise system must also be able to contemplate its end goal and recognize its own ignorance. Additionally, to contemplate its end goal, a wise system must have a “correct conception of worthwhile goals (broadly speaking) or well-being (narrowly speaking)”. "Stephen Grimm further suggests that the following three types of knowledge are individually necessary for wisdom: first, "knowledge of what is good or important for well-being", second, "knowledge of one’s standing, relative to what is good or important for well-being", and third, "knowledge of a strategy for obtaining what is good or important for wellbeing."" == Problems == There are notable problems with attempting to create an artificially wise system. Consciousness, autonomy, and will are considered strictly human features. === Values === There are significant ethical and philosophical issues when attempting to create an intelligent or a wise system. Notably, whose moral values will be used to train the system to be wise. Differing moral values and prejudice can already be seen from various organizations and governments in artificial intelligence. Deployment strategies and values of Artificial Wisdom will conflict between leaders, companies, and countries. Nusbaum states, “When values are in conflict, leaders often make choices that are clever or smart about their own needs, but are often not wise.” === Ethics === Science fiction author Isaac Asimov realized the need to control the technology in the 1940s when he wrote the three laws of robotics as follows: A robot may not injure a human directly or indirectly. A robot must obey human’s orders. A robot should seek to protect its own existence. Additionally, the pace at which technology is rapidly advancing artificial intelligence and thus the need for artificial wisdom may “have outpaced the development of societal guidelines have raised serious questions about the ethics and morality of AI, and called for international oversight and regulations to ensure safety.” === Principal impossibility === One argument, coined by Tsai as the “argument against AW,” or AAAW, postulates the principal impossibility of Artificial Wisdom. The argument is based on the philosophical differences between practical wisdom, also called phronesis, and practical intelligence. Said difference isn’t in “selecting the correct means, but reasoning correctly about what ends to follow”. Tsai puts the argument into a logical proposition as follows: “(P1) An agent is genuinely wise only if the agent can deliberate about the final goal of the domain in which the agent is situated.” “(P2) An intelligent agent cannot deliberate about the final goal of the domain in which the agent is situated.” “(C1) An intelligent agent cannot be genuinely wise.” “(P3) An AW is, at its core, intelligent.” “(C2) An AW cannot be genuinely wise.”

  Read more →
• 

  AI anthropomorphism

  AI anthropomorphism is the attribution of human-like feelings, mental states, and behavioral characteristics to artificial intelligence systems. Factors related to the user of the AI – such as culture, age, education, gender, and personality traits – are also important determinants of the strength of anthropomorphic effects. Since the earliest days of AI development, humans have interpreted machine outputs through anthropomorphic frameworks, but the recent emergence of generative AI has amplified these tendencies. In research and engineering, there is a distinction between anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic design. The former is an innate human tendency toward non-human entities. The latter is the scientific community effort to “design anthropomorphism”. Such a design can involve the manipulation of cues, including AI appearance, behaviour and language. Contemporary AI systems today can generate extremely human-like outputs and are often designed specifically to do so, meaning that their anthropomorphic effects can be especially powerful. In some cases, anthropomorphism is accompanied with explicit beliefs that AI systems are capable of empathy, goodwill, understanding, or consciousness. == Background == === In early AIs === Views of artificial agents possessing a human-like intelligence have existed since the early development of computers in the mid-1900s. The use of the human mind as a metaphor for understanding the workings of machine systems was prevalent among researchers in the early days of computer science, with multiple influential works widely distributing the idea of intelligent machines. Among the most widely cited papers of this period was Alan Turing's "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" in which he introduced the Turing Test, stating that a machine was intelligent if it could produce conversation that was indistinguishable from that of a human. These academic works in the 1940s and 1950s gave early credibility to the idea that machine workings could be thought of similarly to human minds. The public quickly came to view artificial systems similarly, with often exaggerated conceptions of the capabilities of early machines. Among the most well-known demonstrations of this was through the chatbot ELIZA designed by Joseph Weizenbaum in 1966. ELIZA responded to user inputs with a rudimentary text-processing approach that could not be considered anything resembling true understanding of the inputs, yet users, even when operating with full conscious knowledge of ELIZA's limitations, often began to ascribe motivation and understanding to the program's output. Weizenbaum later wrote, "I had not realized ... that extremely short exposures to a relatively simple computer program could induce powerful delusional thinking in quite normal people." Comparisons between the intellectual capabilities of artificial intelligence and human intelligence were continually intensified by the attempts of computer scientists to develop machines that could perform human tasks at a level equal to or better than humans. A symbolic turning point was achieved in 1997, when IBM's chess supercomputer Deep Blue defeated then-world champion Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized six-game match. The defeat of a human by a machine for the first time in chess – a game viewed as a canonical example of human intellect – and the media attention surrounding the match led to a significant shift, where views of parallels between human and artificial intelligence moved from abstract speculation to being concretely demonstrated. A similar achievement was reached in the board game Go in 2017, when the program AlphaGo defeated world top-ranked Ke Jie. === Large language models === The AI boom of the 2020s brought about the widespread emergence of generative AI; in particular, chatbots such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude based on large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly pervasive in everyday society. These systems are notable for the fact that they are able to respond to a wide range of prompts across contexts while producing strikingly human-like outputs – research has shown that humans are often unable to distinguish human-generated text from AI-generated text, and modern AI chatbots have formally been shown to pass the Turing test. As such, the anthropomorphic effects of AI are more powerful than ever. Given that LLMs have brought AI into the technological mainstream, considerable scientific effort has been devoted in recent years to understand existing and potential ramifications of AI in the public sphere; the prevalence and effects of anthropomorphism is one of those domains where much of this effort has been directed. == Current anthropomorphic attributions == === In the general public === Surveys have shown that a substantial portion of the public attributes human-like qualities to AI. In one sample of U.S. adults from 2024, two-thirds of people believed that ChatGPT is possibly conscious on some level, though other research has shown that the public still views the likelihood itself of AI consciousness as comparatively low. Another study conducted in 2025 found that women, people of color, and older individuals were most likely to anthropomorphize AI, as well as that – in general – humans view AIs as warm and competent, and anthropomorphic attributions to AI had increased by 34% in the past year. A YouGov poll reported that 46% of Americans believe that people should display politeness to AI chatbots by saying "please" and "thank you", demonstrating the application of social norms to AI. These beliefs extend to behavior, where majorities of AI users claim to always be polite to chatbots; of those who behave politely, most say they do so simply because it is the "nice" thing to do. In many recent cases, humans have developed robust interpersonal bonds with AI systems. For example: users of social chatbots like Replika and Character.ai have been documented to fall in love with the AIs, or to otherwise treat the AIs as intimate companions, and it has become increasingly common for individuals to use LLMs like ChatGPT as therapists. Chatbots are able to produce responses deeply attuned to users, as they are often designed to maximize agreeableness and mirror users' emotions; this can create compelling illusions of intimacy. === In the research community === In many cases, even AI researchers anthropomorphize AI systems in some capacity. Among the most extreme and well-publicized of these instances occurred in 2022, when engineer Blake Lemoine publicly claimed that Google's LLM LaMDA was conscious. Lemoine published the transcript of a conversation he had had with LaMDA regarding self identity and morality which he claimed was evidence of its sentience; he asserted that LaMDA was "a person" as defined by the United States Constitution and compared its mental capability to that of a 7- or 8-year-old. Lemoine's claims were widely dismissed by the scientific community and by Google itself, which described Lemoine's conclusions as "wholly unfounded" and fired him on the grounds that he had violated policies "to safeguard product information". It is much more common that AI researchers unintentionally imply humanness of AI through the ordinary use of anthropomorphic language to describe nonhuman agents. This kind of language, which Daniel Dennett coined the "intentional stance", is very common in everyday life in a variety of different contexts (e.g., "My computer doesn't want to turn on today"). For AI agents that may actually appear to very closely replicate some human abilities, however, the casual use of such anthropomorphic language in research has been scrutinized for being potentially misleading to the public. As early as 1976, Drew McDermott criticized the research community for the use of "wishful mnemonics", where AIs were referred to with terms like "understand" and "learn". In the LLM era, these criticisms have further intensified, with the negative effects of AI anthropomorphism in the public posing an especially salient danger given the elevated accessibility of modern AI. In some cases, the use of anthropomorphic language for AI is not unintentional, but is willfully used by researchers in order to promote better understanding of the brain – the idea being that, as AI can be functionally similar in some ways to the human brain, we may gain new insights and ideas from treating AI as a kind of model of the brain's workings. In particular, deep neuronal networks (DNNs) are often explicitly compared to the human brain, and significant advances in DNN research have stirred considerable enthusiasm about the ability of AI to emulate the human abilities. Caution has been urged in this domain as well, however; the use of anthropomorphic language can mask important differences that fundamentally distinguish AI from human intelligence. When it comes to DNNs, for example, it has been pointed out that they are still structurally quite different

  Read more →
• 

  Google Research

  Google Research (also known as Research at Google) is the research division of Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.. According to its official website, Google Research publishes findings, releases open-source software, and applies research results within Google products and services as well as within the wider scientific community. == Notable contributions == The 2017 landmark paper Attention Is All You Need, which introduced the Transformer architecture, which has subsequently been used to build modern large language models. Advances in neural machine translation powering Google Translate. Time series forecasting. Development of scalable learning systems and infrastructure for large-model training. Flood forecasting. Research into computational discovery via Google Accelerated Science including demonstrating the first below-threshold quantum calculations.

  Read more →
• 

  Write or Die

  Write or Die is an online web application designed to combat writer's block by letting users of the application punish themselves if they slow down or stop typing in the application's window. How severe the punishments are depends on the mode the user chooses, which ranges from "Gentle" to "Kamikaze". It was reviewed by publications PCWorld, the Los Angeles Times and The Guardian, and it was most notably used by writers Helen Oyeyemi and David Nicholls. The creator, Jeff Printy, explained that he wrote the application because he wants "to be published and make a living as a writer."

  Read more →
• 

  Toy problem

  In scientific disciplines, a toy problem or a puzzlelike problem is a problem that is not of immediate scientific interest, yet is used as an expository device to illustrate a trait that may be shared by other, more complicated, instances of the problem, or as a way to explain a particular, more general, problem solving technique. A toy problem is useful to test and demonstrate methodologies. Researchers can use toy problems to compare the performance of different algorithms. They are also good for game designing. For instance, while engineering a large system, the large problem is often broken down into many smaller toy problems which have been well understood in detail. Often these problems distill a few important aspects of complicated problems so that they can be studied in isolation. Toy problems are thus often very useful in providing intuition about specific phenomena in more complicated problems. As an example, in the field of artificial intelligence, classical puzzles, games and problems are often used as toy problems. These include sliding-block puzzles, N-Queens problem, missionaries and cannibals problem, tic-tac-toe, chess, Tower of Hanoi and others.

  Read more →
• 

  Instance (computer science)

  In computer science, an instance or token (from metalogic and metamathematics) is a specific occurrence of a software element that is based on a type definition. When created, an occurrence is said to have been instantiated, and both the creation process and the result of creation are called instantiation. == Examples == Chat AI instance In chat-based AI systems, an assistant can be invoked across many independent conversation sessions (often called a thread), each with its own message history. A specific execution of the assistant over that session may be represented as a run (an execution on a thread). Class instance In object-oriented programming, an object created from a class type. Each instance of a class shares the class-defined structure and behavior but has its own identity and state. Procedural instance In some contexts (including Simula), each procedure call can be viewed as an instance of that procedure—an activation with its own parameters and local variables. Computer instance In cloud computing and virtualization, an instance commonly refers to a provisioned virtual machine or virtual server with an allocated combination of compute, memory, network, and storage resources. Polygonal model In computer graphics, a model may be instanced so it can be drawn multiple times with different transforms and parameters, improving performance by reusing shared geometry data. Program instance In a POSIX-oriented operating system, a running process is an instance of a program. It can be instantiated via system calls such as fork() and exec(). Each executing process is an instance of a program it has been instantiated from.

  Read more →
• 

  Principle of rationality

  The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.

  Read more →
• 

  ShareMethods

  ShareMethods is a Web 2.0 document management and collaboration service with a focus on sales, marketing, and the extended selling network. It offers a software as a service (SaaS) subscription to companies and is available as a stand-alone application or as an integrated program with CRM tools such as Oracle CRM On Demand or salesforce.com. == History == ShareMethods was launched in 2004 to provide collaboration and communication services for sales and marketing teams, business partners, and customers. The founders have a background of building software-as-a-service applications and creating digital media applications. In September 2005, ShareMethods launched "ShareNow" as one of the first applications on the salesforce.com AppExchange. In September 2006, ShareMethods moved its operations into a SAS 70 Type II data center owned by SunGard. In March 2009, ShareMethods launched "ShareSpaces" to provide on-demand portals or workspaces. In 2013, ShareMethods announced that its platform is available in a private cloud (on-premises) version. == Products == ShareMethods: Combines document management, collaboration, analytics, and CRM integration into a single solution. Key content can be centrally managed and delivered to sales channels, while providing feedback to marketing. ShareMethods is often used as a sales portal for internal sales and a partner portal for external partners. ShareNow: Integrates ShareMethods with salesforce.com providing Single Sign On for salesforce.com users and access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. including custom objects. Also facilitates collaboration between salesforce.com users and non-users. ShareMethods for Oracle CRM On Demand: Integrates ShareMethods with Oracle CRM On Demand providing Single Sign On for Oracle users and easy access to files related to accounts opportunities, etc. ShareOffice: An on-demand intranet/extranet solution. Features include full-text search, version history, server sync-up, email updates, audit trail/analytics, check-in/check-out, multilingual user interface. ShareSpaces: Independent workspaces or portals where users can collaborate with business partners, teammates, or individuals to work together on content and documents. == Integration and interoperability == ShareMethods is available on Salesforce.com's AppExchange platform. ShareMethods also integrates with Oracle CRM On Demand to provide document management within the CRM application. Customers also can integrate proprietary systems via single-sign-on and self-registration. In addition, developers can make use of the ShareMethods API based on WebDAV to integrate document management functionality.

  Read more →
• 

  H2O (software)

  H2O is an open-source, in-memory, distributed machine learning and predictive analytics platform developed by the company H2O.ai (previously 0xdata). The software uses a distributed architecture for parallel processing on standard hardware. It supports algorithms for large-scale data analysis and model deployment. H2O is primarily used by data scientists and developers for statistical modeling and data-driven decision-making. The platform is designed to handle in-memory computations across a distributed computing environment. It offers implementations for numerous statistical and machine learning algorithms, which are accessible through various programming interfaces. The software is released under the Apache License 2.0. == Functionality and features == H2O provides a suite of supervised and unsupervised machine learning algorithms. Its core functions include: Supervised learning: algorithms in the field of statistics, data mining and machine learning such as generalized linear models, random forests, gradient boosting and deep learning are implemented for classification and regression tasks. Unsupervised learning: including K-Means clustering and principal component analysis. Automated machine learning: a features designed to automate the processes of model selection, tuning, and ensemble creation. The software can ingest data from various sources, including the Hadoop Distributed File System, Amazon S3, SQL databases, as well as local file systems. It operates natively on Apache Spark clusters through Sparkling Water. Proponents claim that improved performance is achieved compared to other analysis tools. The software is distributed free of charge, under a business model based on the development of individual applications and support. == Architecture == H2O is primarily written in Java. It uses a distributed architecture that allows the platform to cluster nodes for parallel processing and in-memory storage of data and models. Users interact with the H2O platform through several primary interfaces: Programming language interfaces: APIs are provided for the R and Python programming languages, and various Apache offerings (Apache Hadoop and Spark, as well as Maven). H2O Flow: a graphical web-based interactive computational environment that functions as a notebook interface for data exploration, model building, and scripting. REST-API: allows for integration with other applications and frameworks such as Microsoft Excel or RStudio. With the H2O Machine Learning Integration Nodes, KNIME offers algorithmic workflows. While the algorithm executes, approximate results are displayed, so that users can track the progress and intervene if needed. == History, influences, and extensions == The software project was initiated by the company 0xdata, which later changed its name to H2O.ai. The three Stanford professors Stephen P. Boyd, Robert Tibshirani and Trevor Hastie form a panel that advises H2O on scientific issues. Since its inception, H2O provides open-source machine learning libraries for enterprise use. The core H2O platform is often complemented by offerings from H2O.ai, such as H2O Driverless AI. == Reception == H2O is referenced in peer-reviewed literature regarding automated machine learning (AutoML). The platform has been categorized as a "Leader" and a "Strong Performer" in industry reports by Forrester Research. H2O (the open-source platform) and the associated commercial platform Driverless AI have been recurring winners of InfoWorld's most prestigious awards, including both the Best of Open Source Software ("Bossies") and the Technology of the Year awards.

  Read more →
• 

  World model (artificial intelligence)

  A world model in artificial intelligence is a machine learning system that builds an internal representation of an environment. The model predicts how that environment changes over time in response to actions. Researchers design world models to help agents plan, reason, and act without constant real-world trial and error. World models differ from systems that merely classify or generate outputs. They simulate dynamics such as physics, object interactions, and causality. Early ideas date to the 1990s. Modern versions power robots, autonomous driving, and interactive video generation. == History == Jürgen Schmidhuber introduced the term world model in machine learning in 1990. He proposed recurrent neural networks that predict future states from observations and use those predictions to train agents. David Ha and Schmidhuber revived the concept in a 2018 paper. Their agents learned to drive virtual cars and play video games inside self-generated simulations. Yann LeCun advanced the idea in a 2022 position paper titled "A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence". He argued that intelligence requires predictive models of the world rather than pure pattern matching. LeCun proposed the joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA) as a practical foundation. LeCun and collaborators developed several JEPA variants. V-JEPA 2 reached state-of-the-art performance on video understanding and physical reasoning at the time. It supports zero-shot robot control in unfamiliar environments. Introduced in March 2026, LeWorldModel trains stably end-to-end from raw pixels and uses two loss terms and avoids hand-crafted heuristics. LeCun founded Advanced Machine Intelligence Labs in 2026 to further develop world models. Google DeepMind introduced Genie in 2024. The model learned interactive environments from unlabeled internet videos. Genie 2 followed in late 2024 and added three-dimensional generation. The Genie series set benchmarks for general-purpose simulation. Genie 3 was introduced in August 2025. It produces photorealistic, real-time interactive worlds from text prompts which are displayed at 24 frames per second and explored in real time with text or image prompts. The model supports persistent three-dimensional worlds and real-time interaction. Waymo adopted Genie 3 in February 2026 and used it to create a specialized world model for autonomous driving simulation, called the Waymo World Model. It produces synchronized camera and lidar outputs and creates edge cases that real robotaxis rarely encounter. The edge cases were reported to be unusual by PCMag. General Intuition announced a $133.7 million seed round. World Labs raised $1 billion. AMI raised $1.03 billion. In April 2026, Alibaba announced Happy Oyster, its world model designed for real-time and “flowy” world model. It includes a directing mode for world building based on text and image prompts and a wandering mode for exploring the resulting world. It can generate 3-minute in-world video clips. Also in April, World Labs, co-founded by Li Fei Fei, unveiled Spark 2.0, an open-source 3D Gaussian splatting rendering engine that targets smartphone-class devices. In June 2026, Nvidia released Cosmos 3, a family of open-weight models. It combines previously independent physical reasoning, world simulation, and action generation. Cosmos 3 integrates can process and generate text, image, video, audio, and action sequences. The model employs a Mixture-of-Transformers" (MoT) approach. An autoregressive (AR) transformer handles reasoning and next-token prediction, while a diffusion transformer (DT) does multimodal generation. Encoders (ViT for vision, VAE for visual/audio, and domain-specific for actions) and generate a shared representation space using 3D multi-dimensional rotary position embedding (mRoPE) for spatial and temporal information. The family includes Cosmos3-Nano (16B parameters) for workstations; Cosmos3-Super (64B parameters) for research. == Architecture == World models process raw sensory data such as video frames or lidar scans. They compress this input into compact latent representations. The system then predicts future representations rather than pixel-by-pixel reconstructions. Many modern world models use joint embedding predictive architecture (JEPA). An encoder turns observations into embeddings. A predictor estimates one or a suite of embeddings from the current one and an action. In some cases a critic chooses one embedding as the best result. A regularizer keeps embeddings well-behaved. The model trains by minimizing prediction error in embedding space. This approach avoids the high cost of generating every detail. Some architectures add explicit components. A fast reactive path handles immediate responses. A slower deliberative path performs longer-horizon planning. Video prediction accuracy or robot success rates are key metrics, but do not always predict real-world performance. Generative world models such as Genie 3 combine these with a simulator. They accept text prompts or layouts and output consistent video, lidar, or three-dimensional scenes. World models often train with self-supervised learning. They use large unlabeled datasets of video or robot interactions. Self-supervised learning can speed learning. Reinforcement learning can fine-tune a model for specific tasks. == Applications == World models support robot learning. Agents train inside simulations and transfer skills to the physical world. This reduces the need for dangerous or expensive real-world trials. Autonomous vehicles use world models to test rare events. Waymo's system simulates tornadoes or unusual pedestrian behavior. Companies train planners without putting vehicles on public roads. Interactive entertainment benefits from world models. Genie 3 lets users generate playable environments from simple descriptions. Game studios prototype levels faster. Scientific simulation gains from these models. Researchers model physical systems or biological processes at scale. Planners in logistics or urban design test strategies inside accurate digital twins. == Comparison with large language models == Both world models and large language models (LLMs) use inferencing on their inputs to make predictions. LLMs operate on textual inputs. They predict the next token in text sequences. They excel at language-oriented tasks such as translation or summarization. However, they lack understanding of physics. World models operate on sensor inputs such as pixels. They predict state changes in that data in latent space. This design supports planning and causal reasoning. LLMs generate fluent text but often fail at consistent physical predictions. Their architecture employs transformers with refinements such as mixture of experts. World models divide an inferencing task into work performed by encoders, predictors, simulators, and other pieces. They typically handle multimodal inputs such as video, lidar, radar, and audio, guided by textual prompting. LLMs power chatbots and code assistants. World models drive embodied agents that act in dynamic environments, such as autonomous driving. The two may be combined in hybrid systems. For example, a LLM handles instructions, while a world model manages low-level control. World model proponents such as LeCun claim that because LLMs are trained only on text, they have no ability to predict anything beyond text, such as real-world events. == Benchmarks == World model benchmarks test physical understanding, long-term consistency, planning, and generalization from sensor data. Meta introduced three benchmarks for V-JEPA 2. IntPhys 2 measures a model's ability to detect physics violations. It presents pairs of videos that diverge when one breaks physical rules. Humans score near 100% accuracy. V-JEPA 2 achieves little better than random chance on many conditions. Minimal Video Pairs (MVPBench) tests physical understanding through multiple-choice questions based on short video clips. It probes object interactions and causality. Something-Something tests action recognition. Epic-Kitchens-100 tests human action anticipation. DeepMind benchmark: Interactive evaluation measures consistency over minutes of interaction, memory of off-screen objects, and response to user actions or text prompts. Waymo benchmark: Output generation quality: Metrics include realism, controllability (via text prompts), and usefulness for training planners in simulated worlds. However, pixel reconstruction error rate with episodic rewards often fails. Other: Epic-Kitchens-100 (often measured with Recall@5) Ego4D 50 Salads, Breakfast, etc. Potential benchmarks: Zero-shot transfer to robots Long-horizon planning Implausible prediction rate

  Read more →
• 

  AI-assisted software development

  AI-assisted software development is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) to augment software development. It uses large language models (LLMs), AI agents and other AI technologies to assist software developers. It helps in a range of tasks of the software development life cycle, from code generation to debugging, editing, testing, UI design, understanding the code, and documentation. Agentic coding denotes the use of AI agents for software development. == Technologies == === Source code generation === Large language models trained or fine-tuned on source-code corpora can generate source code from natural-language descriptions, comments, or docstrings. Research on code-generation systems often evaluates generated programs by functional correctness, such as whether the output passes automated test cases, rather than by syntax alone. Such tools can be features or extensions of integrated development environments (IDEs). === Intelligent code completion === AI agents using pre-trained and fine-tuned LLMs can predict and suggest code completions based on context. According to Husein, Aburajouh & Catal in a 2025 literature review in Computer Standards & Interfaces, "LLMs significantly enhance code completion performance across several programming languages and contexts, and their capability to predict relevant code snippets based on context and partial input boosts developer productivity substantially." === Testing, debugging, code review and analysis === AI is used to automatically generate test cases, identify potential bugs and security vulnerabilities, and suggest fixes. AI can also be used to perform static code analysis and suggest potential performance improvements. == Limitations == Both ownership of and responsibility for AI-generated code is disputed. According to a report from the German Federal Office for Information Security, the use of AI coding assistants without careful oversight from experienced developers can introduce both minor and major security vulnerabilities, and any potential gain in productivity should be weighed against the cost of additional quality control and security measures. According to Deloitte, outputs from AI-assisted software development must be validated through a combination of automated testing, static analysis tools and human review, creating a governance layer to improve quality and accountability. == Vibe coding ==

  Read more →
• 

  WinFIG

  WinFIG is a proprietary shareware vector graphics editor application. The file format and rendering are as close to Xfig as possible, but the program takes advantage of Windows features like clipboard, printer preview, multiple documents etc. As of 2011, WinFIG is under active development, with new features being added regularly. == History == The first release was in March 2003 and based on the Amiga program AmiFIG by the same author, which is also an Xfig compatible vector drawing application. WinFIG was not created by porting the Xfig source code to Windows. It is an independent implementation. Starting with release 4.0 WinFIG was ported from MFC to the Qt toolkit as the application framework and thereby enabling the first release of a Linux version. After Version 7.8 the Version scheme changes to years with version 2021.1. == Interface and usability == WinFIG is designed to provide a clear, efficient and convenient graphical user interface. It allows working on multiple documents using an MDI user interface and provides unlimited undo and redo of actions. == Features == === Object creation === The basic types of objects in WinFIG are: Open and closed Splines Ellipses Polylines and Polygons Texts LaTeX formatted texts Arcs Images: PNG, GIF, JPEG, EPS and more Compound objects, which are hierarchical compositions of objects Objects can have several attributes, which depend on the object type: Line width Line style Line cap style Line join style Arrows Outline color, fill color and fill pattern === Object manipulation === move copy scale rotate align add/delete points from lines or splines copy object attributes Numerical input of point coordinates === Exports === WinFIG can export into various formats: Raster formats: GIF, JPEG, PNG, PPM, XBM, XPM, PCX, TIFF, SLD Formats for printed documents: PostScript, PDF, LaTeX, HP-GL (printer control language used by Hewlett-Packard plotters), Vector graphics formats: EPS, SVG, PSTricks, TPIC, PIC, CGM, Metafont, MetaPost, EMF, Tk. === Miscellaneous === Winfig can handle smart links. A smart link is a moving connection from a source to a target object. It is established by connecting the end point of a line or spline to another object. The connecting line or spline segment follows the movements of the target object. Smart links are useful for diagrams, graphs etc. WinFIG can show a grid and provides several magnet modes for constraining editing operations to discrete coordinates. Objects can be organized in layers to control their Z-order. This is important to control overlapping of filled shapes. Object library: drawings can be stored in a special sub-folder in the program installation directory, which makes them available in the library dialog for easy reuse.

  Read more →
• 

  Resisting AI

  Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence is a book on artificial intelligence (AI) by Dan McQuillan, published in 2022 by Bristol University Press. == Content == Resisting AI takes the form of an extended essay, which contrasts optimistic visions about AI's potential by arguing that AI may best be seen as a continuation and reinforcement of bureaucratic forms of discrimination and violence, ultimately fostering authoritarian outcomes. For McQuillan, AI's promise of objective calculability is antithetical to an egalitarian and just society. McQuillan uses the expression "AI violence" to describe how – based on opaque algorithms – various actors can discriminate against categories of people in accessing jobs, loans, medical care, and other benefits. The book suggests that AI has a political resonance with soft eugenic approaches to the valuation of life by modern welfare states, and that AI exhibits eugenic features in its underlying logic, as well as in its technical operations. The parallel is with historical eugenicists achieving saving to the state by sterilizing defectives so the state would not have to care for their offspring. The analysis of McQuillan goes beyond the known critique of AI systems fostering precarious labour markets, addressing "necropolitics", the politics of who is entitled to live, and who to die. Although McQuillan offers a brief history of machine learning at the beginning of the book – with its need for "hidden and undercompensated labour", he is concerned more with the social impacts of AI rather than with its technical aspects. McQuillan sees AI as the continuation of existing bureaucratic systems that already marginalize vulnerable groups – aggravated by the fact that AI systems trained on existing data are likely to reinforce existing discriminations, e.g. in attempting to optimize welfare distribution based on existing data patterns, ultimately creating a system of "self-reinforcing social profiling". In elaborating on the continuation between existing bureaucratic violence and AI, McQuillan connects to Hannah Arendt's concept of the thoughtless bureaucrat in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which now becomes the algorithm that, lacking intent, cannot be accountable, and is thus endowed with an "algorithmic thoughtlessness". McQuillan defends the "fascist" in the title of the work by arguing that while not all AI is fascist, this emerging technology of control may end up being deployed by fascist or authoritarian regimes. For McQuillan, AI can support the diffusion of states of exception, as a technology impossible to properly regulate and a mechanism for multiplying exceptions more widely. An example of a scenario where AI systems of surveillance could bring discrimination to a new high is the initiative to create LGBT-free zones in Poland. Skeptical of ethical regulations to control the technology, McQuillan suggests people's councils and workers' councils, and other forms of citizens' agency to resist AI. A chapter titled "Post-Machine Learning" makes an appeal for resistance via currents of thought from feminist science (standpoint theory), post-normal science (extended peer communities), and new materialism; McQuillan encourages the reader to question the meaning of "objectivity" and calls for the necessity of alternative ways of knowing. Among the virtuous examples of resistance – possibly to be adopted by the AI workers themselves – McQuillan notes the Lucas Plan of the workers of Lucas Aerospace Corporation, in which a workforce declared redundant took control, reorienting the enterprise toward useful products. McQuillan advocates for what he calls decomputing, an opposition to the sweeping application and expansion of artificial intelligence. Similar to degrowth, the approach criticizes AI as an outgrowth of the systemic issues within capitalist systems. McQuillan argues that a different future is possible, in which distance between people is reduced rather than increased through AI intermediaries. The work of McQuillan warns against "watered-down forms of engagement" with AI, such as citizen juries, which superficially look like democratic deliberation but may actually obscure important decisions about AI that are outside the purview of the engagement situation (McQuillan 2022, 128). In an interview about the book, McQuillan describes himself as an "AI abolitionist". == Reception == The book has been praised for how it "masterfully disassembles AI as an epistemological, social, and political paradigm". On the critical side, a review in the academic journal Justice, Power and Resistance took exception to the "nightmarish visions of Big Brother" offered by McQuillan, and argued that while many elements of AI may pose concern, a critique should not be based on a caricature of what AI is, concluding that McQuillan's work is "less of a theory and more of a Manifesto". Another review notes "a disconnect between the technical aspects of AI and the socio-political analysis McQuillan provides." Although the book was published before the ChatGPT and large language model debate heated up, the book has not lost relevance to the AI discussion. It is noted for suggesting a link between beliefs in artificial intelligence and beliefs in a racialised and gendered visions of intelligence overall, whereby a certain type of rational, measurable intelligence is privileged, leading to "historical notions of hierarchies of being". The blog Reboot praised McQuillan for offering a theory of harm of AI (why AI could end up hurting people and society) that does not just encourage tackling in isolation specific predicted problems with AI-centric systems: bias, non-inclusiveness, exploitativeness, environmental destructiveness, opacity, and non-contestability. For educational policies could also look at AI following the reading of McQuillan: In his book Resisting AI, Dan McQuillan argues that "When we're thinking about the actuality of AI, we can't separate the calculations in the code from the social context of its application" .... McQuillan's particular concern is how many contemporary applications of AI are amplifying existing inequalities and injustices as well as deepening social divisions and instabilities. His book makes a powerful case for anticipating these effects and actively resisting them for the good of societies. Videos and podcasts with an interest in AI and emerging technology have discussed the book.

  Read more →
• 

  Gödel machine

  A Gödel machine is a hypothetical self-improving computer program that solves problems in an optimal way. It uses a recursive self-improvement protocol in which it rewrites its own code when it can prove the new code provides a better strategy. The machine was invented by Jürgen Schmidhuber (first proposed in 2003), but is named after Kurt Gödel who inspired the mathematical theories. The Gödel machine is often discussed when dealing with issues of meta-learning, also known as "learning to learn." Applications include automating human design decisions and transfer of knowledge between multiple related tasks, and may lead to design of more robust and general learning architectures. Though theoretically possible, no full implementation has been created. The Gödel machine is often compared with Marcus Hutter's AIXI, another formal specification for an artificial general intelligence. Schmidhuber points out that the Gödel machine could start out by implementing AIXItl as its initial sub-program, and self-modify after it finds proof that another algorithm for its search code will be better. == Limitations == Traditional problems solved by a computer only require one input and provide some output. Computers of this sort had their initial algorithm hardwired. This does not take into account the dynamic natural environment, and thus was a goal for the Gödel machine to overcome. The Gödel machine has limitations of its own, however. According to Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, any formal system that encompasses arithmetic is either flawed or allows for statements that cannot be proved in the system. Hence even a Gödel machine with unlimited computational resources must ignore those self-improvements whose effectiveness it cannot prove. == Variables of interest == There are three variables that are particularly useful in the run time of the Gödel machine. At some time t {\displaystyle t} , the variable time {\displaystyle {\text{time}}} will have the binary equivalent of t {\displaystyle t} . This is incremented steadily throughout the run time of the machine. Any input meant for the Gödel machine from the natural environment is stored in variable x {\displaystyle x} . It is likely the case that x {\displaystyle x} will hold different values for different values of variable time {\displaystyle {\text{time}}} . The outputs of the Gödel machine are stored in variable y {\displaystyle y} , where y ( t ) {\displaystyle y(t)} would be the output bit-string at some time t {\displaystyle t} . At any given time t {\displaystyle t} , where ( 1 ≤ t ≤ T ) {\displaystyle (1\leq t\leq T)} , the goal is to maximize future success or utility. A typical utility function follows the pattern u ( s , E n v ) : S × E → R {\displaystyle u(s,\mathrm {Env} ):S\times E\rightarrow \mathbb {R} } : u ( s , E n v ) = E μ [ ∑ τ = time T r ( τ ) ∣ s , E n v ] {\displaystyle u(s,\mathrm {Env} )=E_{\mu }{\Bigg [}\sum _{\tau ={\text{time}}}^{T}r(\tau )\mid s,\mathrm {Env} {\Bigg ]}} where r ( t ) {\displaystyle r(t)} is a real-valued reward input (encoded within s ( t ) {\displaystyle s(t)} ) at time t {\displaystyle t} , E μ [ ⋅ ∣ ⋅ ] {\displaystyle E_{\mu }[\cdot \mid \cdot ]} denotes the conditional expectation operator with respect to some possibly unknown distribution μ {\displaystyle \mu } from a set M {\displaystyle M} of possible distributions ( M {\displaystyle M} reflects whatever is known about the possibly probabilistic reactions of the environment), and the above-mentioned time = time ⁡ ( s ) {\displaystyle {\text{time}}=\operatorname {time} (s)} is a function of state s {\displaystyle s} which uniquely identifies the current cycle. Note that we take into account the possibility of extending the expected lifespan through appropriate actions. == Instructions used by proof techniques == The nature of the six proof-modifying instructions below makes it impossible to insert an incorrect theorem into proof, thus trivializing proof verification. === get-axiom(n) === Appends the n-th axiom as a theorem to the current theorem sequence. Below is the initial axiom scheme: Hardware Axioms formally specify how components of the machine could change from one cycle to the next. Reward Axioms define the computational cost of hardware instruction and the physical cost of output actions. Related Axioms also define the lifetime of the Gödel machine as scalar quantities representing all rewards/costs. Environment Axioms restrict the way new inputs x are produced from the environment, based on previous sequences of inputs y. Uncertainty Axioms/String Manipulation Axioms are standard axioms for arithmetic, calculus, probability theory, and string manipulation that allow for the construction of proofs related to future variable values within the Gödel machine. Initial State Axioms contain information about how to reconstruct parts or all of the initial state. Utility Axioms describe the overall goal in the form of utility function u. === apply-rule(k, m, n) === Takes in the index k of an inference rule (such as Modus tollens, Modus ponens), and attempts to apply it to the two previously proved theorems m and n. The resulting theorem is then added to the proof. === delete-theorem(m) === Deletes the theorem stored at index m in the current proof. This helps to mitigate storage constraints caused by redundant and unnecessary theorems. Deleted theorems can no longer be referenced by the above apply-rule function. === set-switchprog(m, n) === Replaces switchprog S pm:n, provided it is a non-empty substring of S p. === check() === Verifies whether the goal of the proof search has been reached. A target theorem states that given the current axiomatized utility function u (Item 1f), the utility of a switch from p to the current switchprog would be higher than the utility of continuing the execution of p (which would keep searching for alternative switchprogs). === state2theorem(m, n) === Takes in two arguments, m and n, and attempts to convert the contents of Sm:n into a theorem. == Example applications == === Time-limited NP-hard optimization === The initial input to the Gödel machine is the representation of a connected graph with a large number of nodes linked by edges of various lengths. Within given time T it should find a cyclic path connecting all nodes. The only real-valued reward will occur at time T. It equals 1 divided by the length of the best path found so far (0 if none was found). There are no other inputs. The by-product of maximizing expected reward is to find the shortest path findable within the limited time, given the initial bias. === Fast theorem proving === Prove or disprove as quickly as possible that all even integers > 2 are the sum of two primes (Goldbach’s conjecture). The reward is 1/t, where t is the time required to produce and verify the first such proof. === Maximizing expected reward with bounded resources === A cognitive robot that needs at least 1 liter of gasoline per hour interacts with a partially unknown environment, trying to find hidden, limited gasoline depots to occasionally refuel its tank. It is rewarded in proportion to its lifetime, and dies after at most 100 years or as soon as its tank is empty or it falls off a cliff, and so on. The probabilistic environmental reactions are initially unknown but assumed to be sampled from the axiomatized Speed Prior, according to which hard-to-compute environmental reactions are unlikely. This permits a computable strategy for making near-optimal predictions. One by-product of maximizing expected reward is to maximize expected lifetime.

  Read more →