AI Essay Detector And Humanizer

AI Essay Detector And Humanizer — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  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 →
• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Rule induction

  Rule induction is an area of machine learning in which formal rules are extracted from a set of observations. The rules extracted may represent a full scientific model of the data, or merely represent local patterns in the data. Data mining in general and rule induction in detail are trying to create algorithms without human programming but with analyzing existing data structures. In the easiest case, a rule is expressed with “if-then statements” and was created with the ID3 algorithm for decision tree learning. Rule learning algorithm are taking training data as input and creating rules by partitioning the table with cluster analysis. A possible alternative over the ID3 algorithm is genetic programming which evolves a program until it fits to the data. Creating different algorithm and testing them with input data can be realized in the WEKA software. Additional tools are machine learning libraries for Python, like scikit-learn. == Paradigms == Some major rule induction paradigms are: Association rule learning algorithms (e.g., Agrawal) Decision rule algorithms (e.g., Quinlan 1987) Hypothesis testing algorithms (e.g., RULEX) Horn clause induction Version spaces Rough set rules Inductive Logic Programming Boolean decomposition (Feldman) == Algorithms == Some rule induction algorithms are: Charade Rulex Progol CN2

  Read more →
• 

  Spike-and-slab regression

  Spike-and-slab regression is a type of Bayesian linear regression in which a particular hierarchical prior distribution for the regression coefficients is chosen such that only a subset of the possible regressors is retained. The technique is particularly useful when the number of possible predictors is larger than the number of observations. The idea of the spike-and-slab model was originally proposed by Mitchell & Beauchamp (1988). The approach was further significantly developed by Madigan & Raftery (1994) and George & McCulloch (1997). A recent and important contribution to this literature is Ishwaran & Rao (2005). == Model description == Suppose we have P possible predictors in some model. Vector γ has a length equal to P and consists of zeros and ones. This vector indicates whether a particular variable is included in the regression or not. If no specific prior information on initial inclusion probabilities of particular variables is available, a Bernoulli prior distribution is a common default choice. Conditional on a predictor being in the regression, we identify a prior distribution for the model coefficient, which corresponds to that variable (β). A common choice on that step is to use a normal prior with a mean equal to zero and a large variance calculated based on ( X T X ) − 1 {\displaystyle (X^{T}X)^{-1}} (where X {\displaystyle X} is a design matrix of explanatory variables of the model). A draw of γ from its prior distribution is a list of the variables included in the regression. Conditional on this set of selected variables, we take a draw from the prior distribution of the regression coefficients (if γi = 1 then βi ≠ 0 and if γi = 0 then βi = 0). βγ denotes the subset of β for which γi = 1. In the next step, we calculate a posterior probability for both inclusion and coefficients by applying a standard statistical procedure. All steps of the described algorithm are repeated thousands of times using the Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) technique. As a result, we obtain a posterior distribution of γ (variable inclusion in the model), β (regression coefficient values) and the corresponding prediction of y. The model got its name (spike-and-slab) due to the shape of the two prior distributions. The "spike" is the probability of a particular coefficient in the model to be zero. The "slab" is the prior distribution for the regression coefficient values. An advantage of Bayesian variable selection techniques is that they are able to make use of prior knowledge about the model. In the absence of such knowledge, some reasonable default values can be used; to quote Scott and Varian (2013): "For the analyst who prefers simplicity at the cost of some reasonable assumptions, useful prior information can be reduced to an expected model size, an expected R2, and a sample size ν determining the weight given to the guess at R2." Some researchers suggest the following default values: R2 = 0.5, ν = 0.01, and π = 0.5 (parameter of a prior Bernoulli distribution).

  Read more →
• 

  Moj

  Moj is an Indian short-form video-sharing social networking service owned by Mohalla Tech Pvt Ltd, the parent company of ShareChat. Launched on 29 June 2020, shortly after the Government of India banned TikTok and several other Chinese apps, Moj quickly gained popularity as one of the leading domestic alternatives for short-form video content in India. == History == Moj was introduced by Mohalla Tech, the Bengaluru-based parent company of ShareChat, within days of the TikTok ban in India in June 2020. The app targeted the growing demand for short-form video platforms in the country. By early 2021, Moj had amassed over 100 million downloads on the Google Play Store. In February 2021, Mohalla Tech raised significant funding from investors like Tiger Global, Snapchat, and others, which supported both Moj and ShareChat’s growth. In 2022, Moj partnered with several music labels to expand its licensed music library, competing directly with global platforms such as Instagram Reels and YouTube Shorts. == Features == Short Videos: Users can create and watch videos up to 15–60 seconds. Filters & Effects: The platform provides AR filters, editing tools, stickers, and music integration. Regional Language Support: Moj supports more than 15 Indian languages including Hindi, Bengali, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Marathi. Music Integration: Users can add music tracks to their videos from licensed Indian and international music libraries. Creator Program: Moj launched initiatives to support influencers and creators, offering training, monetization, and promotional opportunities. == Popularity == By mid-2021, Moj reported over 160 million monthly active users. According to reports, Moj consistently ranked among the top social media apps in India in terms of downloads. The app gained traction in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities due to its multilingual support and focus on local content. == Competitors == Moj competes with several other short video platforms in India, including: Instagram Reels (Meta) YouTube Shorts (Google) Josh (Dailyhunt/VerSe Innovation) Roposo (InMobi) MX TakaTak (later merged with Moj in 2022) RedPost (an emerging Indian social networking platform) == Merger with MX TakaTak == In February 2022, Mohalla Tech announced that Moj would merge with MX TakaTak, another leading short video app owned by Times Internet. The merger created one of the largest short-video ecosystems in India, with a combined user base of over 300 million monthly active users.

  Read more →
• 

  Google Clips

  Google Clips is a discontinued miniature clip-on camera device developed by Google. == History == It was announced on October 4, 2017 and went on sale on January 27, 2018. Google Clips automatically captured video clips (without audio) at moments its machine learning algorithms determined to be interesting or relevant. An indicator flashed when the camera was looking for scenes to capture. Google Clips' artificial intelligence (AI) could learn the faces of people to take photographs with certain people, and could automatically set lighting and framing. It had 16 GB of storage built-in storage and could record clips for up to 3 hours. This camera was originally priced at US$249 in the United States. It was withdrawn from sale on October 15, 2019, but supported until the end of December 2021. == Reception == The Independent wrote that Google Clips is "an impressive little device, but one that also has the potential to feel very creepy." According to The Verge's generally negative review, "it didn't capture anything special" over two weeks of testing.

  Read more →
• 

  Mountain car problem

  Mountain Car, a standard testing domain in Reinforcement learning, is a problem in which an under-powered car must drive up a steep hill. Since gravity is stronger than the car's engine, even at full throttle, the car cannot simply accelerate up the steep slope. The car is situated in a valley and must learn to leverage potential energy by driving up the opposite hill before the car is able to make it to the goal at the top of the rightmost hill. The domain has been used as a test bed in various reinforcement learning papers. == Introduction == The mountain car problem, although fairly simple, is commonly applied because it requires a reinforcement learning agent to learn on two continuous variables: position and velocity. For any given state (position and velocity) of the car, the agent is given the possibility of driving left, driving right, or not using the engine at all. In the standard version of the problem, the agent receives a negative reward at every time step when the goal is not reached; the agent has no information about the goal until an initial success. == History == The mountain car problem appeared first in Andrew Moore's PhD thesis (1990). It was later more strictly defined in Singh and Sutton's reinforcement learning paper with eligibility traces. The problem became more widely studied when Sutton and Barto added it to their book Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (1998). Throughout the years many versions of the problem have been used, such as those which modify the reward function, termination condition, and the start state. == Techniques used to solve mountain car == Q-learning and similar techniques for mapping discrete states to discrete actions need to be extended to be able to deal with the continuous state space of the problem. Approaches often fall into one of two categories, state space discretization or function approximation. === Discretization === In this approach, two continuous state variables are pushed into discrete states by bucketing each continuous variable into multiple discrete states. This approach works with properly tuned parameters but a disadvantage is information gathered from one state is not used to evaluate another state. Tile coding can be used to improve discretization and involves continuous variables mapping into sets of buckets offset from one another. Each step of training has a wider impact on the value function approximation because when the offset grids are summed, the information is diffused. === Function approximation === Function approximation is another way to solve the mountain car. By choosing a set of basis functions beforehand, or by generating them as the car drives, the agent can approximate the value function at each state. Unlike the step-wise version of the value function created with discretization, function approximation can more cleanly estimate the true smooth function of the mountain car domain. === Eligibility traces === One aspect of the problem involves the delay of actual reward. The agent is not able to learn about the goal until a successful completion. Given a naive approach for each trial the car can only backup the reward of the goal slightly. This is a problem for naive discretization because each discrete state will only be backed up once, taking a larger number of episodes to learn the problem. This problem can be alleviated via the mechanism of eligibility traces, which will automatically backup the reward given to states before, dramatically increasing the speed of learning. Eligibility traces can be viewed as a bridge from temporal difference learning methods to Monte Carlo methods. == Technical details == The mountain car problem has undergone many iterations. This section focuses on the standard well-defined version from Sutton (2008). === State variables === Two-dimensional continuous state space. V e l o c i t y = ( − 0.07 , 0.07 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=(-0.07,0.07)} P o s i t i o n = ( − 1.2 , 0.6 ) {\displaystyle Position=(-1.2,0.6)} === Actions === One-dimensional discrete action space. m o t o r = ( l e f t , n e u t r a l , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle motor=(left,neutral,right)} === Reward === For every time step: r e w a r d = − 1 {\displaystyle reward=-1} === Update function === For every time step: A c t i o n = [ − 1 , 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle Action=[-1,0,1]} V e l o c i t y = V e l o c i t y + ( A c t i o n ) ∗ 0.001 + cos ⁡ ( 3 ∗ P o s i t i o n ) ∗ ( − 0.0025 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=Velocity+(Action)0.001+\cos(3Position)(-0.0025)} P o s i t i o n = P o s i t i o n + V e l o c i t y {\displaystyle Position=Position+Velocity} === Starting condition === Optionally, many implementations include randomness in both parameters to show better generalized learning. P o s i t i o n = − 0.5 {\displaystyle Position=-0.5} V e l o c i t y = 0.0 {\displaystyle Velocity=0.0} === Termination condition === End the simulation when: P o s i t i o n ≥ 0.6 {\displaystyle Position\geq 0.6} == Variations == There are many versions of the mountain car which deviate in different ways from the standard model. Variables that vary include but are not limited to changing the constants (gravity and steepness) of the problem so specific tuning for specific policies become irrelevant and altering the reward function to affect the agent's ability to learn in a different manner. An example is changing the reward to be equal to the distance from the goal, or changing the reward to zero everywhere and one at the goal. Additionally, a 3D mountain car can be used, with a 4D continuous state space.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaChip (controversy)

  The AlphaChip controversy refers to a series of public, scholarly, and legal disputes surrounding a 2021 Nature paper by Google-affiliated researchers. The paper describes an approach to macro placement, a stage of chip floorplanning, based on reinforcement learning (RL), a machine learning method in which a system iteratively improves its decisions by optimizing performance-based reward signals. The primary technical question is whether the new techniques are better than existing (non-AI) techniques. Both internal Google studies and external attempts to replicate the algorithm have failed to show the claimed benefits. No head-to-head comparison is available because the data used in the paper is proprietary, and Google has not released any results from running its algorithm on public benchmarks. This has resulted in considerable skepticism over the paper's claims. In addition, the inability of others (both inside and outside of Google) to replicate the claimed results have sparked concerns about the paper’s methodology, reproducibility, and scientific integrity. The lead researchers of the Nature paper were affiliated with Google Brain, which became part of Google DeepMind, and later spun off into the company Ricursive. == Motivation for research: Macro placement in chip layout == Chip design for modern integrated circuits is a complex, expert-driven process that relies on electronic design automation. It determines the performance of the final chip, and takes weeks or months to complete. Advances that produce better designs, or complete the process faster, are commercially and academically significant. Macro placement is a step during chip design that determines the locations of large circuit components (macros) within a chip. It is followed by detailed placement, which places the far more numerous but much smaller standard cells. Alternatively, mixed-size placement simultaneously places both large macros and millions of small cells, requiring algorithms to handle objects that differ by several orders of magnitude in area and mobility. The number of macros per circuit typically ranges from several to thousands. Wiring must be performed after placement, and the details of this wiring strongly influence the power, performance, and area (PPA) of the completed chip. The full wiring calculation is very resource intensive, so placement tools typically use a proxy cost, a simplified objective function used to guide the placement algorithm during training and evaluation. The faithfulness of the chosen proxy cost to the final objective cost is a critical aspect of placer performance. === State of the art as of 2021 === Chips have been designed since the 1960s, so there were many existing methods as of 2021. Available options included manual design, academic tools, and commercial offerings. Academic methods include combinatorial optimization techniques such as simulated annealing, analytical placement, hierarchical heuristics, and as of 2019 reinforcement learning and broader machine learning techniques.. Existing (non-AI) academic tools for solving the same problem include APlace, NTUplace3, ePlace, RePlace, and DREAMPlace. Commercial EDA vendors also offered automated software tools for floorplanning and mixed-size placement. For instance, as of 2019 Cadence’s Innovus implementation software offered a Concurrent Macro Placer (CMP) feature to automatically place large blocks and standard cells. == The 2021 Nature paper and its claims == In 2021, Nature published a paper under the title “A graph‑placement methodology for fast chip design” co‑authored by 21 Google-affiliated researchers. The paper reported that an RL agent could generate macro placements for integrated circuits "in under six hours" and achieve improvements over human-designed layouts in power, timing performance, and area (PPA), standard chip-quality metrics referring respectively to energy consumption, chip operating speed, and silicon footprint (evaluated after wire routing). It introduced a sequential macro placement algorithm in which macros are placed one at a time instead of optimizing their locations concurrently. At each step, the algorithm selects a location for a single macro on a discretized chip canvas, conditioning its decision on the placements of previously placed macros. This sequential formulation converts macro placement into a long-horizon decision process in which early placement choices constrain later ones. After macro placement, force-directed placement is applied to place standard cells connected to the macros. Deep reinforcement learning is used to train a policy network to place macros by maximizing a reward that reflects final placement quality (for example, wirelength and congestion). Policy learning occurs during self‑play for one or multiple circuit designs. Further placement optimizations refine the overall layout by balancing wirelength, density, and overlap constraints, while treating the macro locations produced by the RL policy as fixed obstacles. The approach relies on pre-training, in which the RL model is first trained on a corpus of prior designs (twenty in the Nature paper) to learn general placement patterns before being fine-tuned on a specific chip. Circuit examples used in the study were parts of proprietary Google TPU designs, called blocks (or floorplan partitions). The paper reported results on five blocks and described the approach as generalizable across chip designs. == Controversy == Soon after the paper's publication, controversy arose over whether the claims were true, whether they were sufficiently proven, and whether academic standards were followed. These controversies arose both within Google and among external academic experts. === Internal dispute at Google and legal proceedings === In 2022, Satrajit Chatterjee, a Google engineer involved in reviewing the AlphaChip work, raised concerns internally and drafted an alternative analysis, (Stronger Baselines) arguing that established methods outperformed the RL approach under fair comparison. In March 2022, Google declined to publish this analysis and terminated Chatterjee's employment. Chatterjee filed a wrongful dismissal lawsuit, alleging that representations related to the AlphaChip research involved fraud and scientific misconduct. According to court documents, Chatterjee's study was conducted "in the context of a large potential Google Cloud deal". He noted that it "would have been unethical to imply that we had revolutionary technology when our tests showed otherwise" and claimed Google was deliberately withholding material information. Furthermore, the committee that reviewed his paper and disapproved its publication was allegedly chaired by subordinates of Jeff Dean, a senior co-author of the Nature paper. Google’s subsequent motion to dismiss was denied, holding that Chatterjee had plausibly alleged retaliation for refusing to engage in conduct he believed would violate state or federal law. === External controversy === The external questions can be summarized in four main points: (a) Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? (b) Did the paper provide enough information to allow the results to be independently reproduced and verified? If so, are the results an improvement over existing academic and commercial tools? (c) Were the comparisons in the paper done fairly and with full disclosure? (d) Were academic standards followed? Each of these is discussed below. ==== Are the claims supported by the evidence provided? ==== The Nature paper described the reduction in design-process time as going from "days or weeks" to "hours", but did not provide per-design time breakdowns or specify the number of engineers, their level of expertise, or the baseline tools and workflow against which this comparison was made. It was also unclear whether the "days or weeks" baseline included time spent on other tasks such as functional design changes. The paper also evaluated the method on fewer benchmarks (five) than is common in the field, and showed mixed results across different evaluation goals While the approach was described as improving circuit area, this claim seems unsupported, as the RL optimization did not alter the overall circuit area, as it adjusted only the locations of fixed-shape non-overlapping circuit components within a fixed rectangular layout boundary. ==== Comparison with existing methods, and replicating the algorithm ==== Because macro placement is largely geometric and its fundamental algorithms are not tied to a specific process node, competing approaches can be evaluated on public benchmarks (tests) across technologies, rather than primarily on proprietary internal designs. This is standard procedure when comparing academic placers, see . In contrast, Google has only reported results only on internal proprietary designs, and as of 2026 has not offered comparisons with prior methods on common benchmarks. Researchers at the University of Califor

  Read more →
• 

  Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm

  The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm (TF algorithm), is an efficient algorithm for generating the background image of a given video sequence. By assuming that the background image is shown in the majority of the video, the algorithm is able to generate a good background image of a video in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time using only a small number of binary operations and Boolean bit operations, which require a small amount of memory and has built-in operators found in many programming languages such as C, C++, and Java. == History == People tracking from videos usually involves some form of background subtraction to segment foreground from background. Once foreground images are extracted, then desired algorithms (such as those for motion tracking, object tracking, and facial recognition) may be executed using these images. However, background subtraction requires that the background image is already available and unfortunately, this is not always the case. Traditionally, the background image is searched for manually or automatically from the video images when there are no objects. More recently, automatic background generation through object detection, medial filtering, medoid filtering, approximated median filtering, linear predictive filter, non-parametric model, Kalman filter, and adaptive smoothening have been suggested; however, most of these methods have high computational complexity and are resource-intensive. The Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is also an automatic background generation algorithm. Its advantage, however, is its computational speed of only O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of an image and its accuracy gained within a manageable number of frames. Only at least three frames from a video is needed to produce the background image assuming that for every pixel position, the background occurs in the majority of the videos. Furthermore, it can be performed for both grayscale and colored videos. == Assumptions == The camera is stationary. The light of the environment changes only slowly relative to the motions of the people in the scene. The number of people does not occupy the scene for most of the time at the same place. Generally, however, the algorithm will certainly work whenever the following single important assumption holds: For each pixel position, the majority of the pixel values in the entire video contain the pixel value of the actual background image (at that position).As long as each part of the background is shown in the majority of the video, the entire background image needs not to appear in any of its frames. The algorithm is expected to work accurately. == Background image generation == === Equations === For three frames of image sequence x 1 {\displaystyle x_{1}} , x 2 {\displaystyle x_{2}} , and x 3 {\displaystyle x_{3}} , the background image B {\displaystyle B} is obtained using B = x 3 ( x 1 ⊕ x 2 ) + x 1 x 2 {\displaystyle B=x_{3}(x_{1}\oplus x_{2})+x_{1}x_{2}} where ⊕ {\displaystyle \oplus } denotes the exclusive disjunctive bit operator. The Boolean mode function S {\displaystyle S} of the table occurs when the number of 1 entries is larger than half of the number of images such that S = { 1 , if ∑ i = 1 n x i ≥ ⌈ n 2 + 1 ⌉ , and n ≥ 3 0 , otherwise {\displaystyle S={\begin{cases}1,&{\text{if }}\sum _{i=1}^{n}x_{i}\geq \left\lceil {\frac {n}{2}}+1\right\rceil ,{\text{ and }}n\geq 3\\0,&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} For three images, the background image B {\displaystyle B} can be taken as the value x ¯ 1 x 2 x 3 + x 1 x ¯ 2 x 3 + x 1 x 2 x ¯ 3 + x 1 x 2 x 3 {\displaystyle {\bar {x}}_{1}x_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}{\bar {x}}_{2}x_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}{\bar {x}}_{3}+x_{1}x_{2}x_{3}} === Background generation algorithm === At the first level, three frames are selected at random from the image sequence to produce a background image by combining them using the first equation. This yields a better background image at the second level. The procedure is repeated until desired level L {\displaystyle L} . == Theoretical accuracy == At level ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } , the probability p ℓ {\displaystyle p_{\ell }} that the modal bit predicted is the actual modal bit is represented by the equation p ℓ = ( p ℓ − 1 ) 3 + 3 ( p ℓ − 1 ) 2 ( 1 − p ℓ − 1 ) {\displaystyle p_{\ell }=(p_{\ell -1})^{3}+3(p_{\ell -1})^{2}(1-p_{\ell -1})} . The table below gives the computed probability values across several levels using some specific initial probabilities. It can be observed that even if the modal bit at the considered position is at a low 60% of the frames, the probability of accurate modal bit determination is already more than 99% at 6 levels. == Space complexity == The space requirement of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm is given by the function O ( R F + R 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(RF+R3^{L})} , depending on the resolution R {\displaystyle R} of the image, the number F {\displaystyle F} of frames in the video, and the desired number L {\displaystyle L} of levels. However, the fact that L {\displaystyle L} will probably not exceed 6 reduces the space complexity to O ( R F ) {\displaystyle O(RF)} . == Time complexity == The entire algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time, only depending on the resolution of the image. Computing the modal bit for each bit can be done in O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} -time while the computation of the resulting image from the three given images can be done in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} -time. The number of the images to be processed in L {\displaystyle L} levels is O ( 3 L ) {\displaystyle O(3^{L})} . However, since L ≤ 6 {\displaystyle L\leq 6} , then this is actually O ( 1 ) {\displaystyle O(1)} , thus the algorithm runs in O ( R ) {\displaystyle O(R)} . == Variants == A variant of the Teknomo–Fernandez algorithm that incorporates the Monte-Carlo method named CRF has been developed. Two different configurations of CRF were implemented: CRF9,2 and CRF81,1. Experiments on some colored video sequences showed that the CRF configurations outperform the TF algorithm in terms of accuracy. However, the TF algorithm remains more efficient in terms of processing time. == Applications == Object detection Face detection Face recognition Pedestrian detection Video surveillance Motion capture Human-computer interaction Content-based video coding Traffic monitoring Real-time gesture recognition

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence controversies

  The controversies surrounding artificial intelligence encompass a broad range of public, academic, and political debates regarding the societal effects of artificial intelligence (AI). These debates intensified particularly in the late 2010s and 2020s, coinciding with an accelerated period of development known as the AI boom. While advocates emphasize the technology's potential to solve complex problems and enhance human quality of life, detractors highlight a wide array of dangers and challenges. These include concerns over ethics, plagiarism and theft, fraud, safety and alignment, environmental impacts, technological unemployment, and the spread of misinformation. It also covers severe future or theoretical challenges, such as the emergence of artificial superintelligence and existential risks. == 2016 == === Microsoft Tay chatbot (2016) === On March 23, 2016, Microsoft released Tay, a chatbot designed to mimic the language patterns of a 19-year-old American girl and learn from interactions with Twitter users. Soon after its launch, Tay began posting racist, sexist, and otherwise inflammatory tweets after Twitter users deliberately taught it offensive phrases and exploited its "repeat after me" capability. Examples of controversial outputs included Holocaust denial and calls for genocide using racial slurs. Within 16 hours of its release, Microsoft suspended the Twitter account, deleted the offensive tweets, and stated that Tay had suffered from a "coordinated attack by a subset of people" that "exploited a vulnerability." Tay was briefly and accidentally re-released on March 30 during testing, after which it was permanently shut down. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella later stated that Tay "has had a great influence on how Microsoft is approaching AI" and taught the company the importance of taking accountability. == 2022 == === Voiceverse NFT plagiarism scandal (2022) === On January 14, 2022, voice actor Troy Baker announced a partnership with Voiceverse, a blockchain-based company that marketed proprietary AI voice cloning technology as non-fungible tokens (NFT), triggering immediate backlash over environmental concerns, fears that AI could displace human voice actors, and concerns about fraud. Later that same day, the pseudonymous creator of 15.ai—a free, non-commercial AI voice synthesis research project—revealed through server logs that Voiceverse had used 15.ai to generate voice samples, pitch-shifted them to make them unrecognizable, and falsely marketed them as their own proprietary technology before selling them as NFTs; the developer of 15.ai had previously stated that they had no interest in incorporating NFTs into their work. Voiceverse confessed within an hour and stated that their marketing team had used 15.ai without attribution while rushing to create a demo. News publications and AI watchdog groups universally characterized the incident as theft stemming from generative artificial intelligence. === Théâtre D'opéra Spatial (2022) === On August 29, 2022, Jason Michael Allen won first place in the "emerging artist" (non-professional) division of the "Digital Arts/Digitally-Manipulated Photography" category of the Colorado State Fair's fine arts competition with Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, a digital artwork created using the AI image generator Midjourney, Adobe Photoshop, and AI upscaling tools, becoming one of the first images made using generative AI to win such a prize. Allen disclosed his use of Midjourney when submitting, though the judges did not know it was an AI tool but stated they would have awarded him first place regardless. While there was little contention about the image at the fair, reactions to the win on social media were negative. On September 5, 2023, the United States Copyright Office ruled that the work was not eligible for copyright protection as the human creative input was de minimis and that copyright rules "exclude works produced by non-humans." == 2023 == === Statements on AI risk (2023) === On March 22, 2023, the Future of Life Institute published an open letter calling on "all AI labs to immediately pause for at least 6 months the training of AI systems more powerful than GPT-4", citing risks such as AI-generated propaganda, extreme automation of jobs, human obsolescence, and a society-wide loss of control. The letter, published a week after the release of OpenAI's GPT-4, asserted that current large language models were "becoming human-competitive at general tasks". It received more than 30,000 signatures, including academic AI researchers and industry CEOs such as Yoshua Bengio, Stuart Russell, Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak and Yuval Noah Harari. The letter was criticized for diverting attention from more immediate societal risks such as algorithmic biases, with Timnit Gebru and others arguing that it amplified "some futuristic, dystopian sci-fi scenario" instead of current problems with AI. On May 30, 2023, the Center for AI Safety released a one-sentence statement signed by hundreds of artificial intelligence experts and other notable figures: "Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war." Signatories included Turing laureates Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, as well as the scientific and executive leaders of several major AI companies, including Sam Altman, Demis Hassabis, and Bill Gates. The statement prompted responses from political leaders, including UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who retweeted it with a statement that the UK government would look carefully into it, and White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who commented that AI "is one of the most powerful technologies that we see currently in our time." Skeptics, including from Human Rights Watch, argued that scientists should focus on known risks of AI instead of speculative future risks. === Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI (2023) === On November 17, 2023, OpenAI's board of directors ousted co-founder and chief executive Sam Altman, stating that "the board no longer has confidence in his ability to continue leading OpenAI." The removal was precipitated by employee concerns about his handling of artificial intelligence safety and allegations of abusive behavior. Altman was reinstated on November 22 after pressure from employees and investors, including a letter signed by 745 of OpenAI's 770 employees threatening mass resignations if the board did not resign. The removal and subsequent reinstatement caused widespread reactions, including Microsoft's stock falling nearly three percent following the initial announcement and then rising over two percent to an all-time high after Altman was hired to lead a Microsoft AI research team before his reinstatement. The incident also prompted investigations from the Competition and Markets Authority and the Federal Trade Commission into Microsoft's relationship with OpenAI. == 2024 == === Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy (2024) === In late January 2024, sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake images of Taylor Swift were proliferated on X, with one post reported to have been seen over 47 million times before its removal. Disinformation research firm Graphika traced the images back to 4chan, while members of a Telegram group had discussed ways to circumvent censorship safeguards of AI image generators to create pornographic images of celebrities. The images prompted responses from anti-sexual assault advocacy groups, US politicians, and Swifties. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella called the incident "alarming and terrible." X briefly blocked searches of Swift's name on January 27, 2024, and Microsoft enhanced its text-to-image model safeguards to prevent future abuse. On January 30, US senators Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Amy Klobuchar, and Josh Hawley introduced a bipartisan bill that would allow victims to sue individuals who produced or possessed "digital forgeries" with intent to distribute, or those who received the material knowing it was made without consent. === Google Gemini image generation controversy (2024) === In February 2024, social media users reported that Google's Gemini chatbot was generating images that featured people of color and women in historically inaccurate contexts—such as Vikings, Nazi soldiers, and the Founding Fathers—and refusing prompts to generate images of white people. The images were derided on social media, including by conservatives who cited them as evidence of Google's "wokeness", and criticized by Elon Musk, who denounced Google's products as biased and racist. In response, Google paused Gemini's ability to generate images of people. Google executive Prabhakar Raghavan released a statement explaining that Gemini had "overcompensate[d]" in its efforts to strive for diversity and acknowledging that the images were "embarrassing and wrong". Google CEO Sundar Pichai called the incident offensive and unacceptable in an internal memo, promising struc

  Read more →
• 

  Biohybrid system

  Biohybrid systems refer to the integration of biological materials, such as cells or tissues, with artificial components, including electronics or mechanical structure. This combination incorporates the capabilities of living organisms with the precision of man-made technology. As a result, these systems perform tasks that neither biology nor machines could achieve independently. Biohybrid systems might use lab-cultured muscle cells to power small robots or combine sensors with living tissue for better health sensing. The intent behind these systems is to combine the benefits of biological and technological components to introduce new solutions for complex medical challenges. Biohybrid systems may have transformative potential across sectors, such as robotics to create actuators and sensors that mimic natural muscle and nerve function, medicine in developing smart implants and drug delivery systems, in prosthetics for enhancing user control through neural or muscular interfaces and environmental sustainability for deploying biohybrid solutions for pollution sensing or remediation. == Origin == The term "biohybrid" is a compound of "bio" from biology (meaning life) and "hybrid" (referring to a combination of distinct elements), denoting a field of study. Its use helps distinguish such systems from purely biological constructs or entirely synthetic machines. Early academic mentions may include bio actuated robotics papers and foundational tissue-robot integration studies published in journals like Nature Biotechnology or Science Robotics. The emergence of the term reflects a growing recognition of the need to describe systems that do not fit cleanly into traditional categories. == Design principles == One of the most significant biohybrid challenges is to engineer interfaces between living tissue and artificial materials that are efficient. This means having precise control over adhesion at the surface, diffusion of nutrients, and signal conduction. Actuation mechanisms within the heart of these systems generate movement or mechanical response. These may be in the form of living muscle cells such as skeletal myocytes or cardiomyocytes, soft pneumatic actuators, or electrical stimulation-responsive tissues. Materials selection is equally critical. Hydrogels, elastomers like PDMS (polydimethylsiloxane), and biopolymers are commonly used due to their softness and biocompatibility. These materials must support cell viability, resist immune attack, and allow the integration of mechanical or electrical components. == Key components == At their core, biohybrid systems work by bridging living biological parts with technology. Through this integration, functionality that neither system could accomplish singularly is possible. Biological parts may be cells, tissues, or even organs—occasionally cultured in a laboratory setting. These biological parts carry out biologically inspired behaviors, such as muscle contraction or chemical sensing in the body. Technological components may constitute devices like sensors, electronic components, and mechanical structure. These manipulate the system, supply power, or transfer data. An example is a sensor that is implantable within a body and detects glucose levels as it sends information to a smart phone. By integrating these artificial and biological parts, biohybrid systems can perform advanced functions, such as tissue regeneration, real-time health monitoring, or the recovery of motor function in paralysis patients. Biohybrid systems generally consist of two major components: the biological and the mechanical. Biological components may include muscle cells for contraction, endothelial cells for vascularization, and stem cells for regenerative capabilities. Mechanical components comprise soft actuators that mimic organic motion, synthetic scaffolds that provide support and structure, and microfluidic systems that facilitate the delivery of nutrients and removal of waste. These components are combined in a manner that allows for dynamic, lifelike behavior—such as the contraction of tissue or the propagation of mechanical waves—while maintaining biocompatibility and durability. == Applications == The range of applications for biohybrid systems is broad and continuously expanding. In robotics, biohybrid structures have been used to engineer microscopic, muscle-driven machines, such as Harvard University's biohybrid stingray robot. In medical applications, they offer new alternatives for organ repair and augmentation, including biohybrid heart valves and esophageal scaffolds. Biohybrids are also promising in neural interfaces, where the goal is to create long-lasting, stable interaction between mechanical devices and brain tissue. Muscle-actuated drug response platforms are under exploration in pharmacology for modelling and real-time screening. == Examples == Several high-profile research projects have demonstrated the potential of biohybrid systems: Harvard researchers developed a biohybrid swimming ray powered by rat cardiac cells layered onto a gold skeleton, mimicking the motion of a real stingray. At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a cardiac pump actuated entirely by living heart muscle cells was engineered to simulate the behavior of a beating heart. Bio actuated soft robots have been built to simulate gut peristalsis, using muscle contractions to replicate natural wave-like movement in the digestive tract. == Challenges and limitations == As with many technologies that involve living systems, biohybrid systems raise important ethical and biomedical questions. Cell sourcing remains a key issue, particularly when embryonic or animal-derived cells are used. Long-term viability is another concern—living tissues must be kept alive with nutrients and oxygen, and they often degrade or elicit immune responses when implanted. Powering these biological parts presents logistical and ethical hurdles as well. Systems must either include internal mechanisms for nutrient delivery or be supported externally, which can limit portability and independence. == Future directions == Researchers are exploring self-directed, self-regulated organ substitutes and regenerative implants that can respond to their surroundings in real-time. These systems may be integrated with artificial intelligence to make them adjust to stimuli and coordinate complex behaviors. Future potential applications are wearable biohybrid systems for rehabilitation, space medicine devices for long-duration missions, and implantable devices that integrate into human physiology.

  Read more →
• 

  Human–AI interaction

  Human–AI interaction is a developing field of research and a sub-field of human–computer interaction (HCI). HCI is a field of research that explores the interactions between humans and computer-based technology, focusing on design implementation, user experience, and psychological factors. With the proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI), there has developed a sub-section of HCI research dedicated specifically to artificial intelligence and how people interact with and are impacted by it. This is human–AI interaction, abbreviated either as HAX or HAII. == Introduction == Artificial intelligence (AI), in general, has fluid definitions and varied research applications, but in brief can be applied to mechanizing tasks that would require human intelligence to complete. AI are tools designed to replicate the human abilities of navigating uncertainty, active learning, and processing information in different contexts. Within the context of HCI and HAX research, artificial intelligence can be broken into two sub-fields, natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision (CV). AI technologies notably include machine-learning, deep-learning and neural networks, and large-language models (LLMs). As a new and rapidly developing technology, AI is changing how computers work and therefore changing how humans interact with computers. Unlike the traditional human-computer interaction, where a human directs a machine, human-AI interaction is characterized by a more collaborative relationship between the computer program (the AI) and the human user, as AI is perceived as an active agent rather than a tool. This changing dynamic creates new questions and necessitates new research methods that are not present in traditional HCI research. According to a scoping review on the state of the discipline, the HAX field comprises research on the "design, development, and evaluation of AI systems" and encompasses the themes of human-AI collaboration, human-AI competition, human-AI conflict, and human-AI symbiosis. == Design == Machine learning and artificial intelligence have been used for decades in targeted advertising and to recommend content in social media. Ethical Guidelines (Framework for ethical AI development) == User Experience (UX) == This section should handle research on how users interact with tools. What techniques do they use, do they develop habits, what types of programs and devices are they using to access these tools, what do they use these tools to do exactly. === Cognitive Frameworks in AI Tool Users === AI has been viewed with various expectations, attributions, and often misconceptions. Many people exclusively understand AI as the LLM chatbots they interact with, like ChatGPT or Claude, or other generative AI programs. [Insert section: discuss how people interact with these specific AI tools as a connection to the following paragraphs] Most fundamentally, humans have a mental model of understanding AI's reasoning and motivation for its decision recommendations, and building a holistic and precise mental model of AI helps people create prompts to receive more valuable responses from AI. However, these mental models are not whole because people can only gain more information about AI through their limited interaction with it; more interaction with AI builds a better mental model that a person may build to produce better prompt outcomes. Research on human-AI interaction has emphasized that users develop mental models of AI systems and revise those models through repeated use, feedback, and explanation, while design research has stressed the importance of communicating capabilities and limitations early and supporting trust calibration through explanation and correction. In a 2025 SSRN working paper, John DeVadoss proposed "Hypothetico-Deductive Interaction" (HDI), a framework that describes human-AI interaction as a mutual process of conjecture and refutation in which users test assumptions about an AI system's capabilities while the system infers and updates assumptions about user goals through its responses and clarifying questions. DeVadoss argued that this framing helps explain prompt iteration, weak capability awareness, and trust miscalibration, and suggested design responses such as clearer communication of uncertainty, easier correction, actionable explanations, and safer failure modes. == Research themes == === Human-AI collaboration === Human-AI collaboration occurs when the human and AI supervise the task on the same level and extent to achieve the same goal. Some collaboration occurs in the form of augmenting human capability. AI may help human ability in analysis and decision-making through providing and weighing a volume of information, and learning to defer to the human decision when it recognizes its unreliability. It is especially beneficial when the human can detect a task that AI can be trusted to make few errors so that there is not a lot of excessive checking process required on the human's end. Some findings show signs of human-AI augmentation, or human–AI symbiosis, in which AI enhances human ability in a way that co-working on a task with AI produces better outcomes than a human working alone. For example: the quality and speed of customer service tasks increase when a human agent collaborates with AI, training on specific models allows AI to improve diagnoses in clinical settings, and AI with human-intervention can improve creativity of artwork while fully AI-generated haikus were rated negatively. Human-AI synergy, a concept in which human-AI collaboration would produce more optimal outcomes than either human or AI working alone could explain why AI does not always help with performance. Some AI features and development may accelerate human-AI synergy, while others may stagnate it. For example, when AI updates for better performance, it sometimes worsens the team performance with human and AI by reducing the compatibility with the new model and the mental model a user has developed on the previous version. Research has found that AI often supports human capabilities in the form of human-AI augmentation and not human-AI synergy, potentially because people rely too much on AI and stop thinking on their own. Prompting people to actively engage in analysis and think when to follow AI recommendations reduces their over-reliance, especially for individuals with higher need for cognition. === Human-AI competition === Robots and computers have substituted routine tasks historically completed by humans, but agentic AI has made it possible to also replace cognitive tasks including taking phone calls for appointments and driving a car. At the point of 2016, research has estimated that 45% of paid activities could be replaced by AI by 2030. Perceived autonomy of robots is known to increase people's negative attitude toward them, and worry about the technology taking over leads people to reject it. There has been a consistent tendency of algorithm aversion in which people prefer human advice over AI advice. However, people are not always able to tell apart tasks completed by AI or other humans. See AI takeover for more information. It is also notable that this sentiment is more prominent in the Western cultures as Westerners tend to show less positive views about AI compared to East Asians. == Research on the psychological impacts of AI == === Perception on others who use AI === As much as people perceive and make judgment about AI itself, they also form impressions of themselves and others who use AI. In the workplace, employees who disclose the use of AI in their tasks are more likely to receive feedback that they are not as hardworking as those who are in the same job who receive non-AI help to complete the same tasks. AI use disclosure diminishes the perceived legitimacy in the employee's task and decision making which ultimately leads observers to distrust people who use AI. Although these negative effects of AI use disclosure are weakened by the observers who use AI frequently themselves, the effect is still not attenuated by the observers' positive attitude towards AI. === Bias, AI, and human === Although AI provides a wide range of information and suggestions to its users, AI itself is not free of biases and stereotypes, and it does not always help people reduce their cognitive errors and biases. People are prone to such errors by failing to see other potential ideas and cases that are not listed by AI responses and committing to a decision suggested by AI that directly contradicts the correct information and directions that they are already aware of. Gender bias is also reflected as the female gendering of AI technologies which conceptualizes females as a helpful assistant. == Emotional connection with AI == Human-AI interaction has been theorized in the context of interpersonal relationships mainly in social psychology, communications and media studies, and as a technology interface through the lens of hu

  Read more →
• 

  Artbreeder

  Artbreeder, formerly known as Ganbreeder, is a collaborative, machine learning-based art website. Using the models StyleGAN and BigGAN, the website allows users to generate and modify images of faces, landscapes, and paintings, among other categories. == Overview == On Artbreeder, users mainly interact through the remixing - referred to as 'breeding' - of other users' images found in the publicly accessible database of images. The creation of new variations can be done by tweaking sliders on an image's page, known as "genes", which in the "Portraits" model can range from color balance to gender, facial hair, and glasses. Additionally, any image can be "crossbred" with other publicly viewable images from the database, using a slider to control how much of each image should influence the resulting "child". The site also allows for uploading new images, which the model will attempt to convert into the latent space of the network. == Notable usages == The similarly AI-driven text adventure game AI Dungeon uses Artbreeder to generate profile pictures for its users, and The Static Age's Andrew Paley has used Artbreeder to create the visuals for his music videos. Artbreeder has been used to create portraits of characters from popular novels such as Harry Potter and Twilight. They have also been used to add realistic features to ancient portraits. Artbreeder was used to create characters in the sequel to Ben Drowned with the titular villain, an AI-construct itself, created entirely using the website. == Changes to Artbreeder == ArtBreeder underwent an overhaul, introducing several features to enhance the user experience. Among these updates is the integration SD-XL, developed by stability.ai. Additionally, ArtBreeder also added a functionality known as ControlNet, which enables users to create images based on specific poses. With ControlNet, users can incorporate various poses into their AI Artworks. More features that were introduced into Artbreeder, are Pattern, which creates AI Pattern Images, Outpainting or Uncropping was also an added feature to Artbreeder, that allows the user to expand the image beyond the normal dimensions of the image. == Reception == The artwork generated by users of the website has been described as "beautiful" and "surreal," drawing comparisons to "weird, incomprehensible dreams" that "somehow touch the deep, unconscious parts of [the] mind". However, the generated faces were noted as "creepy and 'off'", and still nowhere near the quality attained by actual digital artists. Additionally, the site faced criticism for perceived confusing aspects of the AI's behavior. Jonathan Bartlett of Mind Matters News noted that "As is always the case with AI, sometimes the [gene] knobs don't work as expected and sometimes the results are... strange," while conceding that Artbreeder was still "probably the start of a new future of made-to-order stock images." Writers from Hyperallergic also took issue with perceived racial biases in the Portraits model, citing a comment from a user who faced difficulty from the neural network while attempting to darken the skin of a portrait to match a source image.

  Read more →
• 

  Neural computation

  Neural computation is the information processing performed by networks of neurons. Neural computation is affiliated with the philosophical tradition of computationalism, which advances the thesis that neural computation explains cognition. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts were the first to propose an account of neural activity as being computational in their seminal 1943 paper "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity." There are three general branches of computationalism, including classicism, connectionism, and computational neuroscience. All three branches agree that cognition is computation, however, they disagree on what sorts of computations constitute cognition. The classicism tradition believes that computation in the brain is digital, analogous to digital computing. Both connectionism and computational neuroscience do not require that the computations that realize cognition are necessarily digital computations. However, the two branches greatly disagree upon which sorts of experimental data should be used to construct explanatory models of cognitive phenomena. Connectionists rely upon behavioral evidence to construct models to explain cognitive phenomena, whereas computational neuroscience leverages neuroanatomical and neurophysiological information to construct mathematical models that explain cognition. When comparing the three main traditions of the computational theory of mind, as well as the different possible forms of computation in the brain, it is helpful to define what we mean by computation in a general sense. Computation is the processing of information, otherwise known as variables or entities, according to a set of rules. A rule in this sense is simply an instruction for executing a manipulation on the current state of the variable, in order to produce a specified output. In other words, a rule dictates which output to produce given a certain input to the computing system. A computing system is a mechanism whose components must be functionally organized to process the information in accordance with the established set of rules. The types of information processed by a computing system determine which type of computations it performs. Traditionally in cognitive science, there have been two proposed types of computation related to neural activity, digital and analog, with the vast majority of theoretical work incorporating a digital understanding of cognition. Computing systems that perform digital computation are functionally organized to execute operations on strings of digits with respect to the type and location of the digit on the string. It has been argued that neural spike train signaling implements some form of digital computation, since neural spikes may be considered as discrete units or digits, like 0 or 1—the neuron either fires an action potential or it does not. Accordingly, neural spike trains could be seen as strings of digits. Alternatively, analog computing systems perform manipulations on non-discrete, irreducibly continuous variables, that is, entities that vary continuously as a function of time. These sorts of operations are characterized by systems of differential equations. Neural computation can be studied by, for example, building models of neural computation. Work on artificial neural networks has been somewhat inspired by knowledge of neural computation.

  Read more →
• 

  STIT logic

  STIT logic (from seeing to it that) is a family of modal and branching-time logics for reasoning about agency and choice. A typical STIT operator has the form [ i s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {stit}}:\varphi ]} , usually read as "agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } ", and is interpreted in models where agents choose between alternative possible futures. STIT logics are used in action theory, deontic logic, epistemic logic, and the theory of intelligent agents to formalise notions such as "could have done otherwise", responsibility, joint action, and strategic ability in an indeterministic world. == Etymology == The acronym STIT comes from the English phrase "seeing to it that", introduced in influential work by Nuel Belnap and Michael Perloff on the logical analysis of agentive expressions. In this tradition, "to see to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } " is treated as a primitive agency operator, rather than being reduced to ordinary modal necessity. == History == Modern STIT logic arose in the 1980s in the context of branching-time semantics and formal theories of agency. Belnap and Perloff's article "Seeing to it that: A canonical form for agentives" introduced the idea of treating expressions of the form "agent i sees to it that φ" as a primitive modal operator, and analysed such sentences using a branching tree of moments and histories. This approach was further developed in a series of papers on indeterminism and agency and provided the conceptual core for later STIT formalisms. In the 1990s the basic formal systems of STIT logic were worked out. Horty and Belnap's influential paper on the deliberative STIT operator distinguished between a "Chellas" STIT that merely records the result of an agent's present choice and a "deliberative" STIT that requires the agent's choice to make a difference, and connected STIT with issues of action, omission, ability and obligation. Around the same time, Ming Xu proved completeness and decidability results for basic STIT systems, including a single-agent logic with Kripke-style semantics and axiomatizations for multi-agent deliberative STIT, thereby establishing STIT as a well-behaved normal modal framework. This early work was systematised in Belnap, Perloff and Xu's monograph Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in Our Indeterminist World, which presents a general branching-time semantics for individual and group STIT operators, discusses independence-of-agents conditions and articulates the metaphysical picture of an indeterministic "tree" of moments. At roughly the same time, Horty's book Agency and Deontic Logic developed deontic STIT logics in which obligations are tied to agents' available choices rather than to static states of affairs, and used the resulting systems to analyse "ought implies can", contrary-to-duty obligations and deontic paradoxes. These works helped to position STIT at the intersection of action theory, temporal logic and deontic logic. From the late 1990s and 2000s onward, STIT logics were combined with epistemic, temporal and strategic modalities. Broersen introduced complete STIT logics for knowledge and action and deontic-epistemic STIT systems that distinguish different modes of mens rea, with applications to responsibility and the specification of multi-agent systems. Work on group and coalitional agency investigated axiomatisations and complexity results for group STIT logics, and related STIT-based analyses of agency to coalition logic and alternating-time temporal logic (ATL) by exhibiting formal embeddings between the frameworks. Explicit temporal operators were added to STIT in so-called temporal STIT logics. Lorini proposed a temporal STIT with "next" and "until" operators along histories and showed how it can be applied to normative reasoning about ongoing behaviour and commitments. Ciuni and Lorini compared different semantics for temporal STIT, clarifying the relationships between branching-time, game-based and epistemic approaches, while Boudou and Lorini gave a semantics for temporal STIT based on concurrent game structures, thus strengthening links with standard models of multi-agent interaction used for ATL and strategy logic. In parallel, complexity-theoretic work by Balbiani, Herzig and Troquard and by Schwarzentruber and co-authors investigated the satisfiability and model-checking problems for various STIT fragments, showing for instance that many expressive group STIT logics are undecidable or of high computational complexity. In the 2010s, STIT ideas were combined with justification logic, imagination operators and refined deontic notions. Justification STIT logics, developed by Olkhovikov and others, merge explicit justifications with STIT-style agency so that producing a proof can itself be treated as an action that brings about knowledge, and they come with completeness and decidability results. Olkhovikov and Wansing introduced STIT imagination logics, together with axiomatic systems and tableau calculi, to model acts of voluntary imagining and their role in doxastic control. Other authors have proposed STIT-based logics of responsibility, blameworthiness and intentionality for use in philosophical and AI settings. Xu's survey article "Combinations of STIT with Ought and Know" (2015) reviews many of these developments and emphasises the interplay between deontic and epistemic STIT logics. Current research on STIT focuses on proof theory, automated reasoning and richer expressive resources. Lyon and van Berkel, building on earlier work on labelled calculi for STIT, have developed cut-free sequent systems and proof-search algorithms that yield syntactic decision procedures for a range of deontic and non-deontic multi-agent STIT logics and support applications such as duty checking and compliance checking in autonomous systems. Sawasaki has proposed first-order cstit-based STIT logics that can distinguish de re and de dicto readings of agency statements and has proved strong completeness results for Hilbert systems over finite models, moving the STIT programme beyond the purely propositional level. Further work investigates interpreted-system and computationally grounded semantics for STIT and its extensions in order to model the behaviour of autonomous agents in multi-agent settings, and proposes STIT-based semantics for epistemic notions based on patterns of information disclosure in interactive systems. == Branching-time semantics == STIT logics are usually interpreted over branching-time models. A standard STIT frame consists of: a non-empty set of moments T {\displaystyle T} , partially ordered by < {\displaystyle <} so that ( T , < ) {\displaystyle (T,<)} forms a tree (every pair of moments with a common predecessor has a greatest lower bound); a set of histories, each history being a maximal linearly ordered subset of T {\displaystyle T} ; a non-empty set of agents A g {\displaystyle Ag} ; for each agent i ∈ A g {\displaystyle i\in Ag} and moment m {\displaystyle m} , a choice function c h o i c e i m {\displaystyle {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}} that partitions the set of histories passing through m {\displaystyle m} into choice cells. The idea is that a moment represents a time at which choices are made, and histories represent complete possible future courses of events. At each moment, each agent's choice corresponds to selecting one of the available cells of histories determined by their choice function. Formulas are evaluated at pairs ( m , h ) {\displaystyle (m,h)} of a moment and a history through that moment (sometimes written m / h {\displaystyle m/h} ). A valuation assigns truth-values to atomic propositions at such indices; Boolean connectives are interpreted pointwise as in Kripke-style modal logic. == Chellas and deliberative STIT operators == Several STIT operators have been distinguished in the literature. A common approach uses two closely related operators, often called Chellas STIT and deliberative STIT. Let H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} be the set of histories passing through a moment m {\displaystyle m} , and write H m {\displaystyle H_{m}} ⟦ φ ⟧ m = { h ∈ H m ∣ M , m / h ⊨ φ } {\displaystyle {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}=\{h\in H_{m}\mid M,m/h\models \varphi \}} for the set of histories at m {\displaystyle m} where φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds. The Chellas STIT operator, often written [ i c s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]} , is given by M , m / h ⊨ [ i c s t i t : φ ] iff c h o i c e i m ( h ) ⊆ ⟦ φ ⟧ m . {\displaystyle M,m/h\models [i\ {\mathsf {cstit}}:\varphi ]\quad {\text{iff}}\quad {\mathsf {choice}}_{i}^{m}(h)\subseteq {\text{⟦}}\varphi {\text{⟧}}_{m}.} Intuitively, agent i {\displaystyle i} sees to it that φ {\displaystyle \varphi } if φ {\displaystyle \varphi } holds at all histories compatible with their present choice. The deliberative STIT operator, [ i d s t i t : φ ] {\displaystyle [i\ {\mathsf {dstit}}:\varphi ]} , adds

  Read more →