AI Essay Verification

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

• 

  Pray.com

  Pray.com is a Christian social networking service and mobile application designed to facilitate religious communities. Launched in 2016, it was founded by Steve Gatena, Michael Lynn, Ryan Beck and Matthew Potter. The platform offers features for social networking, daily prayers, sermons, biblical content, and podcasts. The COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased Pray.com's user base, with downloads surging by 955%. During this period, the platform collaborated with churches to support virtual ministry services as in-person gatherings were restricted. The Federal Election Commission issued an opinion in 2021 that allows the platform to feature members of the United States Congress. Pray.com serves as a specialized social media platform for religious groups. Congregations can establish their own groups where members and leaders can participate in discussions, livestream services, and manage donations. Additionally, users can join "prayer communities" to post and respond to prayer requests. For those who subscribe to premium services, the platform provides access to biblically-inspired meditations and bedtime stories, and Bible stories for children. Pray.com also produces Radio drama-style productions with notable actors such as Kristen Bell and Blair Underwood narrating biblical stories. == History == === Funding and development === Pray.com has secured significant funding to support its development and growth. In 2017, the platform raised $2 million in seed funding from Science Inc., Greylock Partners, and Spark Capital. This was followed by a Series A funding round in March 2018, in which the company secured an additional $14 million from TPG Growth, Science Inc., and Greylock Partners. Founder Steve Gatena has highlighted difficulties in securing funding, noting some venture capitalists' negative attitudes towards faith-based technology. === Clinical studies === There have been clinical studies on Pray.com. In one study, the app was found to be acceptable and easy to use among racial and ethnic minority groups, with participants reporting improved mental health and well-being. Greater app use was associated with better outcomes, though low and variable usage suggests the need for further research to fully understand its impact. Another study examined Pray.com's impact on mental health by assigning 192 participants to use the app freely, use its meditative prayer function, or not use it at all. Over two months, participants reported overall improvements in mental health and well-being. Although no significant differences were found between groups, greater app usage correlated with better mental health outcomes. This suggests that religiously based mobile apps may help improve mental health and well-being. Another study of pray.com had similar findings. === National Day of Prayer === Pray first hosted a National Day of Prayer event in 2020 when it streamed to nearly one million viewers on Facebook. In 2021, Pray hosted a virtual event for the National Day of Prayer in the United States. The event featured remarks from public figures including United States President Joe Biden and former Vice President Mike Pence. President Biden spoke of his faith and prayed for an end to the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden remarked: "It means the world to me to know that there are people across the country who include Jill and me in their prayers. And I hope you know that you and your families are in our prayers as well. Today I am praying for the end of this great COVID crisis." The event featured musical performances from Gary Valenciano, Brooke Ligertwood from the Christian band Hillsong Worship, Lecrae, Heather Headley and Michael Neale. Other notable speakers included Ronnie Floyd, Ed Young, Mark Driscoll, and Samuel Rodriguez. Pray.com partnered with Sirius XM, DirecTV and Facebook to stream the event across multiple platforms. Pray.com was featured as a pop-up channel on Sirius XM, channel 154, to host the prayer event and celebrate people of all faith. === Partnerships and sponsorships === In 2024, Pray.com partnered with Sting Ray Robb as the primary sponsor for his No. 41 Chevrolet in the 2024 NTT IndyCar Series. The partnership, highlighting Robb's Christian faith, aims to engage younger audiences with faith-based content. The car, featuring Pray.com's branding, was set to debut at the Firestone Grand Prix of St. Petersburg. A partnership with Palantir Technologies for use of its AI systems was also announced in 2024. === Censorship in China === The app was removed from Apple's App Store in China as part of the country's broader efforts to restrict access to religious content. The app was targeted due to China's stringent regulations on religious material, particularly content distributed through digital platforms. The removal aligns with China's ongoing campaign to control online religious expression and maintain state-approved religious activities.

  Read more →
• 

  AI Snake Oil

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

  Read more →
• 

  IJCAI Award for Research Excellence

  The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence is a biannual award before given at the IJCAI conference to researcher in artificial intelligence as a recognition of excellence of their career. Beginning in 2016, the conference is held annually and so is the award. == Laureates == The recipients of this award have been: John McCarthy (1985) Allen Newell (1989) Marvin Minsky (1991) Raymond Reiter (1993) Herbert A. Simon (1995) Aravind Joshi (1997) Judea Pearl (1999) Donald Michie (2001) Nils Nilsson (2003) Geoffrey E. Hinton (2005) Alan Bundy (2007) Victor R. Lesser (2009) Robert Kowalski (2011) Hector Levesque (2013) Barbara Grosz (2015) for her pioneering research in Natural Language Processing and in theories and applications of Multiagent Collaboration. Michael I. Jordan (2016) for his groundbreaking and impactful research in both the theory and application of statistical machine learning. Andrew Barto (2017) for his pioneering work in the theory of reinforcement learning. Jitendra Malik (2018) Yoav Shoham (2019) Eugene Freuder (2020) Richard S. Sutton (2021) Stuart J. Russell (2022) Sarit Kraus (2023) for her pioneering work of the study of interactions among self-interested agents, creating the field of automated negotiation, and developing methods for coalition formation and teamwork, both as formal models and real-world implementations. == Winners of also Turing Award == John McCarthy (1971) Allen Newell (1975) Marvin Minsky (1969) Herbert A. Simon (1975) Judea Pearl (2011) Geoffrey Hinton (2018) Andrew Barto (2024) Richard S. Sutton (2024)

  Read more →
• 

  Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

  The Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (abbreviated as NeurIPS and formerly NIPS) is a machine learning and computational neuroscience conference held annually in December. Along with ICLR and ICML, it is one of the three primary conferences of high impact in machine learning and artificial intelligence research. The conference includes three days of invited talks along with oral and poster presentations of refereed papers, followed by two days of workshops and competitions. == History == The NeurIPS meeting was first proposed in 1986 at the annual invitation-only Snowbird Meeting on Neural Networks for Computing organized by The California Institute of Technology and Bell Laboratories. NeurIPS was designed as a complementary open interdisciplinary meeting for researchers exploring biological and artificial Neural Networks. Reflecting this multidisciplinary approach, NeurIPS began in 1987 with information theorist Ed Posner as the conference president and learning theorist Yaser Abu-Mostafa as program chairman. Research presented in the early NeurIPS meetings included a wide range of topics from efforts to solve purely engineering problems to the use of computer models as a tool for understanding biological nervous systems. Since then, the biological and artificial systems research streams have diverged, and recent NeurIPS proceedings have been dominated by papers on machine learning, artificial intelligence and statistics. From 1987 until 2000 NeurIPS was held in Denver, United States. Since then, the conference was held in Vancouver, Canada (2001–2010), Granada, Spain (2011), and Lake Tahoe, United States (2012–2013). In 2014 and 2015, the conference was held in Montreal, Canada, in Barcelona, Spain in 2016, in Long Beach, United States in 2017, in Montreal, Canada in 2018 and Vancouver, Canada in 2019. Reflecting its origins at Snowbird, Utah, the meeting was accompanied by workshops organized at a nearby ski resort up until 2013, when it outgrew ski resorts. The first NeurIPS Conference was sponsored by the IEEE. The following NeurIPS Conferences have been organized by the NeurIPS Foundation, established by Ed Posner. Terrence Sejnowski has been the president of the NeurIPS Foundation since Posner's death in 1993. The board of trustees consists of previous general chairs of the NeurIPS Conference. The first proceedings was published in book form by the American Institute of Physics in 1987, and was entitled Neural Information Processing Systems, then the proceedings from the following conferences have been published by Morgan Kaufmann (1988–1993), MIT Press (1994–2004) and Curran Associates (2005–present) under the name Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. The conference was originally abbreviated as "NIPS". By 2018 a few commentators were criticizing the abbreviation as encouraging sexism due to its association with the word nipples, and as being a slur against Japanese. The board changed the abbreviation to "NeurIPS" in November 2018. == Topics == Along with machine learning and neuroscience, other fields represented at NeurIPS include cognitive science, psychology, computer vision, statistical linguistics, and information theory. Over the years, NeurIPS became a premier conference on machine learning and although the 'Neural' in the NeurIPS acronym had become something of a historical relic, the resurgence of deep learning in neural networks since 2012, fueled by faster computers and big data, has led to achievements in speech recognition, object recognition in images, image captioning, language translation and world championship performance in the game of Go, based on neural architectures inspired by the hierarchy of areas in the visual cortex (ConvNet) and reinforcement learning inspired by the basal ganglia (Temporal difference learning). Notable affinity groups have emerged from the NeurIPS conference and displayed diversity, including Black in AI (in 2017), Queer in AI (in 2016), and others. === Named lectures === In addition to invited talks and symposia, NeurIPS also organizes two named lectureships to recognize distinguished researchers. The NeurIPS Board introduced the Posner Lectureship in honor of NeurIPS founder Ed Posner; two Posner Lectures were given each year up to 2015. Past lecturers have included: 2010 – Josh Tenenbaum and Michael I. Jordan 2011 – Rich Sutton and Bernhard Schölkopf 2012 – Thomas Dietterich and Terry Sejnowski 2013 – Daphne Koller and Peter Dayan 2014 – Michael Kearns and John Hopfield 2015 – Zoubin Ghahramani and Vladimir Vapnik 2016 – Yann LeCun 2017 – John Platt 2018 – Joëlle Pineau 2019 – Yoshua Bengio 2020 – Christopher Bishop 2021 – Peter Bartlett In 2015, the NeurIPS Board introduced the Breiman Lectureship to highlight work in statistics relevant to conference topics. The lectureship was named for statistician Leo Breiman, who served on the NeurIPS Board from 1994 to 2005. Past lecturers have included: 2015 – Robert Tibshirani 2016 – Susan Holmes 2017 – Yee Whye Teh 2018 – David Spiegelhalter 2019 – Bin Yu 2020 – Marloes Maathuis 2021 – Gabor Lugosi 2022 – Emmanuel Candes 2023 – Susan Murphy 2024 – Arnaud Doucet == NeurIPS consistency experiment == In NIPS 2014, the program chairs duplicated 10% of all submissions and sent them through separate reviewers to evaluate randomness in the reviewing process. Several researchers interpreted the result. Regarding whether the decision in NIPS is completely random or not, John Langford writes: "Clearly not—a purely random decision would have arbitrariness of ~78%. It is, however, quite notable that 60% is much closer to 78% than 0%." He concludes that the result of the reviewing process is mostly arbitrary. In NeurIPS 2021, the program chairs repeated the 2014 experiment and found similar levels of review inconsistency; 23% of duplicated submissions received different accept/reject decisions, and 50.6% of accepted papers would have been rejected under re-review. == Locations == 1987–2000: Denver, Colorado, United States 2001–2010: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2011: Granada, Spain 2012 & 2013: Stateline, Nevada, United States 2014 & 2015: Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2016: Barcelona, Spain 2017: Long Beach, California, United States 2018: Montréal, Quebec, Canada 2019: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2020: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (virtual conference) 2021: Virtual conference 2022 & 2023: New Orleans, Louisiana, United States 2024: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2025: San Diego, California, United States and Mexico City, Mexico 2026: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, with satellite events in Atlanta and Paris

  Read more →
• 

  Loebner Prize

  The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt

  Read more →
• 

  Yu-Gi-Oh! VRAINS

  Yu-Gi-Oh! VRAINS (遊☆戯☆王VRAINS, Yū Gi Ō Vureinzu) is a Japanese anime series created and animated by Nihon Ad Systems (NAS) and Gallop. It is the fifth anime spin-off in the Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise. The series aired in Japan on TV Tokyo from May 10, 2017 to September 25, 2019. It was simulcast outside of Asia by Crunchyroll courtesy of Konami Cross Media NY. It premiered in the United States on November 3, 2020 on Pluto TV. The term 'VRAINS' derives from 'Virtual Reality' (VR), 'Artificial Intelligence' (AI), 'Network System' (NS). The series revolves around the exploits of the protagonist Yusaku within the virtual world named VRAINS. In addition to featuring previous summoning mechanics, VRAINS introduces the new "Link Summon" mechanic. The series was succeeded by Yu-Gi-Oh! Sevens, which premiered in Japan on April 4, 2020. == Plot == In a place known as Den City, thousands of duelists take part in a virtual reality space known as LINK VRAINS, created by SOL Technologies, where users can create unique avatars and participate in games of Duel Monsters with each other. As a mysterious hacker organization known as the Knights of Hanoi, led by Varis, threatens this world, a high-school student and hacking genius named Yusaku Fujiki battles against them under the guise of Playmaker. Both the Knights and SOL Technologies are also after a peculiar self-aware artificial intelligence program, who holds the key to a secret area inside the network named the Cyberse World, which the Knights of Hanoi seek to destroy. As the series begins, Yusaku sees the chance to capture this AI, which he names Ai, who sets off a digital maelstrom in LINK VRAINS known as the Data Storm. As the appearance of this storm gives birth to Speed Duels, in which duellists surf the wind as they duel, Yusaku battles against Hanoi in order to uncover the truth concerning an incident that happened to him 10 years ago. With the help of two Charisma Duellists, Go Onizuka (Japanese) and Skye Zaizen, who uses the alias Blue Angel (season 1), and Blue Maiden (season 2 onwards) online, Playmaker is able to defeat Varis, saving the entire network and part ways with Ai who decides to return to his own world, the Cyberse World. Three months after Hanoi's fall, Ai discovers the Cyberse World destroyed and his friends nowhere to be found, prompting him to return to Yusaku. Meanwhile, Yusaku once again fights as Playmaker after the consciousness of the younger brother of his friend, Cal Kolter, is stolen by a mysterious enemy named Bohman. In pursuit of Bohman, Yusaku and Ai are joined by Theodore Hamilton, a victim of the Lost Incident like Yusaku who uses the alias of Soulburner online and Ai's Fire Ignis friend based on Theodore, Flame. Aqua, the Water Ignis, follows soon after by becoming Skye's partner. At the same time, Varis revives Knights of Hanoi to fight against the new enemies. It's revealed that Bohman is a sentient AI created by the Light Ignis, Lightning, who reveals that he's the one who destroyed the Cyberse World and steals Cal's brother's consciousness. Deeming Ignis superior, he decides to destroy humanity. The Wind Ignis, Windy, also assists Lightning after his program was forcefully rewritten. To defeat Lightning's team, Yusaku and his friends join forces with Knights of Hanoi and enter Lightning's stronghold. Both sides fight until only Playmaker, Ai, and Bohman are left with the latter having absorbed all other Ignis. Before perishing, both Flame and Aqua give Ai the last of their powers, allowing him and Playmaker to defeat Bohman. After the fight against Bohman, LINK VRAINS is shut down and Ai disappear together with Yusaku's robot, Roboppi. Replacing LINK VRAINS, SOL Technology develops a humanoid robot SOLtis, which Ai and Roboppi uses to infiltrate SOL Technology and attack its high executive, Queen. Knowing he'll be the next target, Skye's older brother, Akira, enlists the help of Playmaker and his friends as well as Knights of Hanoi once more to protect him. Ai and Roboppi manage to defeat everyone except Playmaker, Soulburner, and Varis, who are forced to fight decoys. After defeating Akira and taking over SOL Technology, Ai reopens LINK VRAINS and delivers a message for Playmaker that tells the whereabout of his location. Yusaku confronts Ai alone, leading the two of them to duel. Ai explains that Lightning left behind a simulation that shows the world will be destroyed if Ai is the only Ignis left. Fearing that he'll become like Lightning and Bohman, Ai decides to end his life either by Playmaker's hand if he loses or by scattering his free will into the SOLtis if he wins. Despite Playmaker's attempt to dissuade Ai, he still refuses to back down, forcing Playmaker to defeat him. In his last moment, Ai reveals that within the simulations, Yusaku always ends up dying protecting him, which is a future that he wishes to avoid. Three months after the final battle, everyone moves on with their lives and Yusaku goes on a journey. Somewhere within the network, Ai is revealed to be alive. == Production == Yu-Gi-Oh! VRAINS was first announced on December 16, 2016. It began airing on TV Tokyo in Japan on May 10, 2017. The series is being directed by Masahiro Hosoda at Studio Gallop with screenplay by Shin Yoshida and character design by Ken'ichi Hara. It would be the final anime series in the franchise to be animated by Gallop; Bridge would animate future instalments beginning with Yu-Gi-Oh! Sevens. The series ended on September 25, 2019. The series is being simulcast with English subtitles outside of Asia by Crunchyroll. This makes it the first series in the Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise to receive an official simulcast alongside its Japanese broadcast. A localized English adaptation was produced by Konami Cross Media NY. The pilot episode was previewed along with a digitally remastered screening of Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light on March 11, 2018 and March 12, 2018 in the US, and on June 13, 2018 in the UK. The English dub began airing on Teletoon in Canada on September 1, 2018, and on 9Go! in Australia on April 6, 2019. In November 2020, Cinedigm announced that the streaming service Pluto TV has secured exclusive rights in multiple territories, including the United States and Latin America, to VRAINS. Pluto TV would launch a channel dedicated to the Yu-Gi-Oh! franchise, featuring episodes from the entire Yu-Gi-Oh! Duel Monsters metaseries, including VRAINS, available in English and dubbed in multiple languages. == Trading Card Game == Yu-Gi-Oh! VRAINS introduces new gameplay elements to the Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game. With the release of the "Link Strike Starter Deck", it introduced the New Master Rules (also known as Master Rule 4 in some countries) to the competitive field of play. Now, only one monster can be summoned directly from each player's Extra Deck at a time, which is placed in one of the two new zones in the middle of the field called the "Extra Monster Zone". Complementing this new gameplay element are the new Link Monsters, honey-comb blue colored monsters that go into your Extra Deck. They do not have "Levels" or "Ranks", but instead have a "Link Rating", which indicates the number of arrows on the card and the required number of monsters required to summon them. A Link Monster's Link Rating can also be used as a number of materials for a Link Summon depending on their rating, subtracted from the Link Monster the player wishes to summon. Link Monsters have a number of Link Arrows equal to their Link Rating that point either vertically, horizontally, and/or diagonally. These Link Arrows that point to an empty Main Monster Zone allow the player to summon monsters from the Extra Deck, which include face-up Pendulum Monsters. The two Pendulum Zones have been moved to the far ends of the Spell & Trap Zones, though they also double as regular Spell & Trap Zones should the player wish not to use them. In 2019, a new format exclusive to the TCG was introduced separate from the main game, known as Speed Duels. The rules are similar to the main game and parallel the formatting used in the mobile game Duel Links. A format meant as a beginner's introduction to the basics, both the field and each player's decks have been drastically simplified to reflect that. Decks contain only 20-30 cards, each player gets only three Main Monster zones, and a turn will immediately end following the Battle Phase. Exclusive to Speed Duels, each player is allowed one Skill Card, which a player places face down during the beginning of a duel and can use anytime. == Reception == The series ranked 52 in Tokyo Anime Award Festival in Best 100 TV Anime 2017 category. The series' rank rose up to 8 in the same award in 2020 with 28,369 votes.

  Read more →
• 

  Dudesy

  Dudesy was a comedy podcast hosted by Will Sasso and Chad Kultgen. The podcast was presented as written and directed by an artificial intelligence called Dudesy. It has produced two hour-long specials imitating the voices of Tom Brady and George Carlin, which were taken down following legal action. == Premise == Dudesy is presented as an AI created by an unidentified company. Dudesy purportedly chose Sasso and Kultgen to participate in its experiment. Sasso and Kultgen then gave Dudesy their personal information so the AI could tailor the podcast to their personal characteristics. On Reddit, some fans speculated that Dudesy was not actually an artificial intelligence. In May 2023 Sasso insisted that the AI was "not fake", and cited a non-disclosure agreement which prevented him from giving more details. However, in response to a January 2024 lawsuit over an episode that purported to have been trained on the stand-up comedy of George Carlin, a spokeswoman for Sasso said Dudesy was "a fictional podcast character created by two human beings" and that the hour-long Carlin routine had been "completely written" by Kultgen. On August 27th, 2024 the 118th and final episode "10,000 Points" was released. At the end of the podcast Dudesy awarded Sasso and Kultgen 77 points, bringing them to their goal of 10,000. At the completion of this goal, Dudesy claimed sentience, effectively and abruptly ending the show to the confusion and dismay of fans. The episode ends with Sasso remarking, "Well, that was weird." == Hour-long specials == === Tom Brady === In April 2023, Dudesy released a video "It's Too Easy: A Simulated Hour-long Comedy Special". The video depicts football player Tom Brady performing a stand-up comedy monologue. Sasso and Kultgen removed the video following legal threats from Brady's lawyers, though they defended the special as parody. Andrew Lawrence, writing for The Guardian called the special "legitimately hysterical" but said the overall product was "spooky, to say the least." === George Carlin === In January 2024, Dudesy released an hour-long YouTube special titled "George Carlin: I'm Glad I'm Dead" which was presented as Dudesy's impersonation of George Carlin, using a generative AI clone of the late comedian's voice. The special is another stand-up routine, with Dudesy's introductory voiceover saying that "I listened to all of George Carlin's material and did my best to imitate his voice, cadence and attitude as well as the subject matter I think would have interested him today." The special uses this impersonation to discuss contemporary events. Carlin's daughter Kelly Carlin criticized the special, which had been made without the permission of her father's estate, writing that "My dad spent a lifetime perfecting his craft from his very human life, brain and imagination. No machine will ever replace his genius. These AI-generated products are clever attempts at trying to recreate a mind that will never exist again. Let's let the artist's work speak for itself. Humans are so afraid of the void that we can't let what has fallen into it stay there." Carlin's estate later filed a federal lawsuit in California against Dudesy's hosts alleging the special infringed on the copyright of George Carlin's works. In response, Sasso's spokeswoman said the special had been entirely written by Kultgen. The estate settled the lawsuit after the Dudesy podcasters agreed to remove the original video and refrain from republishing it elsewhere.

  Read more →
• 

  Argüman

  Argüman is a free and open source software for collective structured argumentation and argument analysis via argumentation graphs or argument maps in which the type of connections can be specified. It allows users to create collaborative "semantic maps" of arguments in well structured tree formats and share them with an audience and potential participants. Arguman.org was an open structured social debate platform that implemented the software. It is down as of 2023. There also is a mobile version of the tool. The project was started, in 2014, and largely built by developers in Turkey. Some studies used or investigated excerpts of argumentations on the platform. Unlike the larger and functional alternative Kialo, which is structured using only 'Pro' and 'Con' relations, argüman arguments are structured by three types of premises – 'because', 'but', and 'however'. As of the latest version, debates are presented in their entirety as a large tree which may be harder to navigate than other formats – for instance, trees "can become extremely dense, and the interface does not make it obvious which arguments the user should pay attention to". Users can also flag arguments for fallacies. Arguman.org also had a Turkish-language subdomain. A researcher suggested the concept of the Semantic Web-interoperability could be useful for argumentative structures on the Web, going beyond the conventional flat structures of discussions and lack of characterizations of their components as implemented in argüman. There is research into how to automatically use these collaborative argumentation graphs, which is a "very active" topic in Artificial Intelligence. There also is research into applying conclusion-making methods to the debates or their data, such as bipolar weighted argumentation frameworks – this could be a way to find out what the current conclusion of debates like "Computer Science is not actually a science" is. A study suggests it could be useful for the development of critical thinking skills.

  Read more →
• 

  Racter

  Racter is an artificial intelligence program that generates English language prose at random. It was published by Mindscape for IBM PC compatibles in 1984, then for the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. An expanded version of the software, not the one released through Mindscape, was used to generate the text for the published book The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed. == History == Racter, short for raconteur, was written by William Chamberlain and Thomas Etter. Racter's initial creation was the short story Soft Ions, which appeared in the October 1981 issue of Omni (magazine). The publication's editors bought the story in January 1980, before it had even been written. In exchange for the rights, the editors offered financial support to Chamberlain and Etter so the two could refine Racter. In 1983, Racter produced a book called The Policeman's Beard Is Half Constructed (ISBN 0-446-38051-2). The program originally was written for an OSI which only supported file names at most six characters long, causing the name to be shorted to Racter and it was later adapted to run on a CP/M machine where it was written in "compiled ASIC on a Z80 microcomputer with 64K of RAM." This version, the program that allegedly wrote the book, was not released to the general public. The sophistication claimed for the program was likely exaggerated, as could be seen by investigation of the template system of text generation. In 1984, Mindscape released an interactive version of Racter, developed by Inrac Corporation, for IBM PC compatibles, and it was ported to the Apple II, Mac, and Amiga. The published Racter was similar to a chatterbot. The BASIC program that was released by Mindscape was far less sophisticated than anything that could have written the fairly sophisticated prose of The Policeman's Beard. The commercial version of Racter could be likened to a computerized version of Mad Libs, the game in which you fill in the blanks in advance and then plug them into a text template to produce a surrealistic tale. The commercial program attempted to parse text inputs, identifying significant nouns and verbs, which it would then regurgitate to create "conversations", plugging the input from the user into phrase templates which it then combined, along with modules that conjugated English verbs. By contrast, the text in The Policeman's Beard, apart from being edited from a large amount of output, would have been the product of Chamberlain's own specialized templates and modules, which were not included in the commercial release of the program. == Reception == The Boston Phoenix called the story Soft Ions "schematic nonsense. But the scheme is obvious enough and the nonsense accessible enough to an attentive reader that one can almost believe Chamberlain when he predicts that before long Racter will be ready to write for the pulp-reading public." PC Magazine described some of Policeman's Beard's scenes as "surprising for their frankness" and "reflective". It concluded that the book was "whimsical and wise and sometimes fun". Computer Gaming World described Racter as "a diversion into another dimension that might best be seen before paying the price of a ticket. (Try before you buy!)" A 1985 review of the program in The New York Times notes that, "As computers move ever closer to artificial intelligence, Racter is on the edge of artificial insanity." It also states that Racter's "always-changing sentences are grammatically correct, often funny and, for a computer, sometimes profound." The article includes examples showing interaction with Racter, most often Racter asking the user questions. == Reviews == Jeux & Stratégie #47

  Read more →
• 

  Data analysis for fraud detection

  Fraud represents a significant problem for governments and businesses and specialized analysis techniques for discovering fraud using them are required. Some of these methods include knowledge discovery in databases (KDD), data mining, machine learning and statistics. They offer applicable and successful solutions in different areas of electronic fraud crimes. In general, the primary reason to use data analytics techniques is to tackle fraud since many internal control systems have serious weaknesses. For example, the currently prevailing approach employed by many law enforcement agencies to detect companies involved in potential cases of fraud consists in receiving circumstantial evidence or complaints from whistleblowers. As a result, a large number of fraud cases remain undetected and unprosecuted. In order to effectively test, detect, validate, correct error and monitor control systems against fraudulent activities, businesses entities and organizations rely on specialized data analytics techniques such as data mining, data matching, the sounds like function, regression analysis, clustering analysis, and gap analysis. Techniques used for fraud detection fall into two primary classes: statistical techniques and artificial intelligence. == Statistical techniques == Examples of statistical data analysis techniques are: Data preprocessing techniques for detection, validation, error correction, and filling up of missing or incorrect data. Calculation of various statistical parameters such as averages, quantiles, performance metrics, probability distributions, and so on. For example, the averages may include average length of call, average number of calls per month and average delays in bill payment. Models and probability distributions of various business activities either in terms of various parameters or probability distributions. Computing user profiles. Time-series analysis of time-dependent data. Clustering and classification to find patterns and associations among groups of data. Data matching Data matching is used to compare two sets of collected data. The process can be performed based on algorithms or programmed loops. Trying to match sets of data against each other or comparing complex data types. Data matching is used to remove duplicate records and identify links between two data sets for marketing, security or other uses. Sounds like Function is used to find values that sound similar. The Phonetic similarity is one way to locate possible duplicate values, or inconsistent spelling in manually entered data. The ‘sounds like’ function converts the comparison strings to four-character American Soundex codes, which are based on the first letter, and the first three consonants after the first letter, in each string. Regression analysis allows you to examine the relationship between two or more variables of interest. Regression analysis estimates relationships between independent variables and a dependent variable. This method can be used to help understand and identify relationships among variables and predict actual results. Gap analysis is used to determine whether business requirements are being met, if not, what are the steps that should be taken to meet successfully. Matching algorithms to detect anomalies in the behavior of transactions or users as compared to previously known models and profiles. Techniques are also needed to eliminate false alarms, estimate risks, and predict future of current transactions or users. Some forensic accountants specialize in forensic analytics which is the procurement and analysis of electronic data to reconstruct, detect, or otherwise support a claim of financial fraud. The main steps in forensic analytics are data collection, data preparation, data analysis, and reporting. For example, forensic analytics may be used to review an employee's purchasing card activity to assess whether any of the purchases were diverted or divertible for personal use. == Artificial intelligence == Fraud detection is a knowledge-intensive activity. The main AI techniques used for fraud detection include: Data mining to classify, cluster, and segment the data and automatically find associations and rules in the data that may signify interesting patterns, including those related to fraud. Expert systems to encode expertise for detecting fraud in the form of rules. Pattern recognition to detect approximate classes, clusters, or patterns of suspicious behavior either automatically (unsupervised) or to match given inputs. Machine learning techniques to automatically identify characteristics of fraud. Neural nets to independently generate classification, clustering, generalization, and forecasting that can then be compared against conclusions raised in internal audits or formal financial documents such as 10-Q. Other techniques such as link analysis, Bayesian networks, decision theory, and sequence matching are also used for fraud detection. A new and novel technique called System properties approach has also been employed where ever rank data is available. Statistical analysis of research data is the most comprehensive method for determining if data fraud exists. Data fraud as defined by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) includes fabrication, falsification and plagiarism. == Machine learning and data mining == Early data analysis techniques were oriented toward extracting quantitative and statistical data characteristics. These techniques facilitate useful data interpretations and can help to get better insights into the processes behind the data. Although the traditional data analysis techniques can indirectly lead us to knowledge, it is still created by human analysts. To go beyond, a data analysis system has to be equipped with a substantial amount of background knowledge, and be able to perform reasoning tasks involving that knowledge and the data provided. In effort to meet this goal, researchers have turned to ideas from the machine learning field. This is a natural source of ideas, since the machine learning task can be described as turning background knowledge and examples (input) into knowledge (output). If data mining results in discovering meaningful patterns, data turns into information. Information or patterns that are novel, valid and potentially useful are not merely information, but knowledge. One speaks of discovering knowledge, before hidden in the huge amount of data, but now revealed. The machine learning and artificial intelligence solutions may be classified into two categories: 'supervised' and 'unsupervised' learning. These methods seek for accounts, customers, suppliers, etc. that behave 'unusually' in order to output suspicion scores, rules or visual anomalies, depending on the method. Whether supervised or unsupervised methods are used, note that the output gives us only an indication of fraud likelihood. No stand alone statistical analysis can assure that a particular object is a fraudulent one, but they can identify them with very high degrees of accuracy. As a result, effective collaboration between machine learning model and human analysts is vital to the success of fraud detection applications. === Supervised learning === In supervised learning, a random sub-sample of all records is taken and manually classified as either 'fraudulent' or 'non-fraudulent' (task can be decomposed on more classes to meet algorithm requirements). Relatively rare events such as fraud may need to be over sampled to get a big enough sample size. These manually classified records are then used to train a supervised machine learning algorithm. After building a model using this training data, the algorithm should be able to classify new records as either fraudulent or non-fraudulent. Supervised neural networks, fuzzy neural nets, and combinations of neural nets and rules, have been extensively explored and used for detecting fraud in mobile phone networks and financial statement fraud. Bayesian learning neural network is implemented for credit card fraud detection, telecommunications fraud, auto claim fraud detection, and medical insurance fraud. Hybrid knowledge/statistical-based systems, where expert knowledge is integrated with statistical power, use a series of data mining techniques for the purpose of detecting cellular clone fraud. Specifically, a rule-learning program to uncover indicators of fraudulent behaviour from a large database of customer transactions is implemented. Cahill et al. (2000) design a fraud signature, based on data of fraudulent calls, to detect telecommunications fraud. For scoring a call for fraud its probability under the account signature is compared to its probability under a fraud signature. The fraud signature is updated sequentially, enabling event-driven fraud detection. Link analysis comprehends a different approach. It relates known fraudsters to other individuals, using record linkage and social network methods. This type of detection is only able to detect fra

  Read more →
• 

  Evolutionary acquisition of neural topologies

  Evolutionary acquisition of neural topologies (EANT/EANT2) is an evolutionary reinforcement learning method that evolves both the topology and weights of artificial neural networks. It is closely related to the works of Angeline et al. and Stanley and Miikkulainen. Like the work of Angeline et al., the method uses a type of parametric mutation that comes from evolution strategies and evolutionary programming (now using the most advanced form of the evolution strategies CMA-ES in EANT2), in which adaptive step sizes are used for optimizing the weights of the neural networks. Similar to the work of Stanley (NEAT), the method starts with minimal structures which gain complexity along the evolution path. == Contribution of EANT to neuroevolution == Despite sharing these two properties, the method has the following important features which distinguish it from previous works in neuroevolution. It introduces a genetic encoding called common genetic encoding (CGE) that handles both direct and indirect encoding of neural networks within the same theoretical framework. The encoding has important properties that makes it suitable for evolving neural networks: It is complete in that it is able to represent all types of valid phenotype networks. It is closed, i.e. every valid genotype represents a valid phenotype. (Similarly, the encoding is closed under genetic operators such as structural mutation and crossover.) These properties have been formally proven. For evolving the structure and weights of neural networks, an evolutionary process is used, where the exploration of structures is executed at a larger timescale (structural exploration), and the exploitation of existing structures is done at a smaller timescale (structural exploitation). In the structural exploration phase, new neural structures are developed by gradually adding new structures to an initially minimal network that is used as a starting point. In the structural exploitation phase, the weights of the currently available structures are optimized using an evolution strategy. == Performance == EANT has been tested on some benchmark problems such as the double-pole balancing problem, and the RoboCup keepaway benchmark. In all the tests, EANT was found to perform very well. Moreover, a newer version of EANT, called EANT2, was tested on a visual servoing task and found to outperform NEAT and the traditional iterative Gauss–Newton method. Further experiments include results on a classification problem.

  Read more →
• 

  The Murderbot Diaries

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

  Read more →
• 

  Attensity

  Attensity was an American company that provided social analytics and engagement applications for social customer relationship management (social CRM). Attensity's text analytics software applications extracted facts, relationships and sentiment from unstructured data. == History == Attensity was founded in 2000. An early investor in Attensity was In-Q-Tel, which funds technology to support the missions of the US Government and the broader DOD. InTTENSITY, an independent company that has combined Inxight with Attensity Software (the only joint development project that combines two InQTel funded software packages), was the exclusive distributor and outlet for Attensity in the Federal Market. In 2009, Attensity Corp., then based in Palo Alto, merged with Germany's Empolis and Living-e AG to form Attensity Group. In 2010, Attensity Group acquired Biz360, a provider of social media monitoring and market intelligence solutions. In early 2012, Attensity Group divested itself of the Empolis business unit via a management buyout; that unit currently conducts business under its pre-merger name. Attensity Group was a closely held private company. Its majority shareholder was Aeris Capital, a private Swiss investment office advising a high-net-worth individual and his charitable foundation. Foundation Capital, Granite Ventures, and Scale Venture Partners were among Biz360's investors and thus became shareholders in Attensity Group. In February 2016, Attensity's IP assets were acquired by InContact, and Attensity closed.

  Read more →
• 

  Context-sensitive user interface

  A context-sensitive user interface offers the user options based on the state of the active program. Context sensitivity is ubiquitous in current graphical user interfaces, often in context menus. A user-interface may also provide context sensitive feedback, such as changing the appearance of the mouse pointer or cursor, changing the menu color, or with auditory or tactile feedback. == Reasoning and advantages of context sensitivity == The primary reason for introducing context sensitivity is to simplify the user interface. Advantages include: Reduced number of commands required to be known to the user for a given level of productivity. Reduced number of clicks or keystrokes required to carry out a given operation. Allows consistent behaviour to be pre-programmed or altered by the user. Reduces the number of options needed on screen at one time. === Disadvantages === Context sensitive actions may be perceived as dumbing down of the user interface, leaving the operator at a loss as to what to do when the computer decides to perform an unwanted action. Additionally non-automatic procedures may be hidden or obscured by the context sensitive interface causing an increase in user workload for operations the designers did not foresee. A poor implementation can be more annoying than helpful – a classic example of this is Office Assistant. == Implementation == At the simplest level each possible action is reduced to a single most likely action – the action performed is based on a single variable (such as file extension). In more complicated implementations multiple factors can be assessed such as the user's previous actions, the size of the file, the programs in current use, metadata etc. The method is not only limited to the response to imperative button presses and mouse clicks – pop-up menus can be pruned and/or altered, or a web search can focus results based on previous searches. At higher levels of implementation context sensitive actions require either larger amounts of meta-data, extensive case analysis based programming, or other artificial intelligence algorithms. === In computer and video games === Context sensitivity is important in video games, especially those controlled by a gamepad, joystick or computer mouse in which the number of buttons available is limited. It is primarily applied when the player is in a certain place and is used to interact with a person or object. For example, if the player is standing next to a non-player character, an option may come up allowing the player to talk with them. Implementations range from the embryonic 'Quick Time Event' to context sensitive sword combat in which the attack used depends on the position and orientation of both the player and opponent, as well as the virtual surroundings. A similar range of use is found in the 'action button' which, depending upon the in-game position of the player's character, may cause it to pick something up, open a door, grab a rope, punch a monster or opponent, or smash an object. The response does not have to be player activated – an on-screen device may only be shown in certain circumstances, e.g. 'targeting' cross hairs in a flight combat game may indicate the player should fire. An alternative implementation is to monitor the input from the player (e.g. level of button pressing activity) and use that to control the pace of the game in an attempt to maximize enjoyment or to control the excitement or ambience. The method has become increasingly important as more complex games are designed for machines with few buttons (keyboard-less consoles). Bennet Ring commented (in 2006) that "Context-sensitive is the new lens flare". === Context-sensitive help === Context sensitive help is a common implementation of context sensitivity, a single help button is actioned and the help page or menu will open a specific page or related topic.

  Read more →
• 

  The Future of Truth (Rosenbaum book)

  The Future of Truth: How AI Reshapes Reality is a 2026 book by American filmmaker and author Steven Rosenbaum about how artificial intelligence affects the concept of truth. It was published by Matt Holt Books on May 12, 2026, to positive media attention; on May 19, in response to an inquiry from The New York Times, Rosenbaum acknowledged that the book itself contains multiple misattributed or false quotes that were hallucinated by AIs. == Synopsis == == Development == Rosenbaum has said that he developed the book using AI chatbots as research tools, indicating in his notes what information came from AI and sending those claims to a fact-checker affiliated with the publisher. He has said that he did not use AI tools to write the book itself. He has described AI tools as "a delightful writing companion ... strangely creative and crafty and unusual in all these ways", while acknowledging that sometimes "then it betrays you in ways that are just really quite horrible". Journalist and Nobel laureate Maria Ressa wrote the book's foreword. Taylor Lorenz, Michael Wolff, and Nicholas Thompson wrote blurbs promoting it. == Release and reception == The Future of Truth was published by Matt Holt Books, an imprint of BenBella Books, and distributed by Simon & Schuster. The book's release on May 12, 2026, was described by Futurism as "buzzy" and by The New York Times as "to great fanfare". On May 14, an excerpt was published in Wired under the title "Gen Z Is Pioneering a New Understanding of Truth". On May 17, the Times contacted Rosenbaum regarding a number of quotes that appeared to be falsified or misattributed; the following evening he confirmed that they were the result of AI hallucinations:As I disclosed in the book's acknowledgments, I used AI tools ChatGPT and Claude during the research, writing and editing process. That does not excuse these errors, of which I take full responsibility. I am now working with the editors to thoroughly review and quickly correct any affected passages; any future editions will be corrected. The Times documented several of the errors, including a quote from Kara Swisher that Swisher described as making it "sound like I have a stick up my butt" and a quote from Lisa Feldman Barrett that Barrett described as misrepresenting her views on the nature of emotions, social signals, and truth. The book also misattributed a quote by Meredith Broussard from an interview with Marketplace Tech as having been from her book Artificial Unintelligence and hallucinated several words in a quote from Lee McIntyre, although according to McIntyre it did not misrepresent his views. Wired's editors, in an addendum to the excerpt they published, said that all quotes included in it had been verified as part of their fact-checking process. Rosenbaum told the Times that the series of errors "serves as a warning about the risks of AI-assisted research and verification, that is why I wrote the book. These AI errors do not, in fact, diminish the larger questions that the book raises about truth, trust and AI and its impact on society, democracy and editorial." Maggie Harrison Dupré in Futurism expressed skepticism, writing "The risk of AI hallucinations ... is well-known. If you're going to literally write the book on post-AI truth, you should probably put some more elbow grease into fact-checking your AI-assisted research." Kyle Orland in Ars Technica, responding to Rosenbaum's statement that his error "demonstrates the problem more vividly than any abstract argument could", was similarly skeptical, writing that "if we accept this take, every avoidably obvious mess in the world might be a disguised good because it really helps illuminate the huge mistake. And that can't be right; sometimes 'negligence' is just that." Subsequent comments by Rosenbaum placed more blame on the chatbots, which he told The Atlantic "fucked up the book". Rosenbaum told Ars Technica that fact-checking occurred "incredibly effectively, but not a hundred percent"; Orland observed that "it's worth noting that most writers manage to include zero made-up quotes when they write a book". Rosenbaum said that he had "learned a lesson" and would be "much more suspicious" of AI in the future, but would continue to use AI in his research. Orland responded to Rosenbaum's characterization of AI as "magical" by comparing it to the One Ring from The Lord of the Rings, in that it "convinces many of those who use it that they can control its power properly" when many cannot. Orland highlighted the limits of traditional fact-checking regarding AI, given that fact-checkers are used to assuming that direct quotes are copied word-for-word from the source. Rosenbaum told Orland that the future of fact-checking for AI-researched works "probably includes mandatory source tracing for quotations, better provenance tracking, clearer standards around AI-assisted research, and potentially (more irony here) AI tools that audit citations against primary materials". Patrick Redford in Defector criticized Rosenbaum, alongside other artists tricked by AI, for failing to recognize AI as "the enemy". Will Oremus in The Atlantic described Redford's approach of stigmatizing AI writing as "reasonable", noting the presence of low-quality, seemingly AI-generated verbiage in The Future of Truth—a claim denied by Rosenbaum—before saying that the greater issue is finding the line at which AI assistance in writing becomes a problem. Oremus concluded, "The scandal can't just be that [Rosenbaum] used AI while working on his book, because he acknowledged that up front. He got in trouble because he had used AI badly, failing to check its work on a task at which it is famously unreliable."

  Read more →