AI Face Upgrade

AI Face Upgrade — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • History of natural language processing

    History of natural language processing

    The history of natural language processing describes the advances of natural language processing. There is some overlap with the history of machine translation, the history of speech recognition, and the history of artificial intelligence. == Early history == The history of machine translation dates back to the seventeenth century, when philosophers such as Leibniz and Descartes put forward proposals for codes which would relate words between languages. All of these proposals remained theoretical, and none resulted in the development of an actual machine. The first patents for "translating machines" were applied for in the mid-1930s. One proposal, by Georges Artsrouni, was simply an automatic bilingual dictionary using paper tape. The other proposal, by Peter Troyanskii, a Russian, was more detailed. Troyanskii’s proposal included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on Esperanto. == Logical period == In 1950, Alan Turing published his famous article "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" which proposed what is now called the Turing test as a criterion of intelligence. This criterion depends on the ability of a computer program to impersonate a human in a real-time written conversation with a human judge, sufficiently well that the judge is unable to distinguish reliably — on the basis of the conversational content alone — between the program and a real human. In 1957, Noam Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures revolutionized Linguistics with 'universal grammar', a rule-based system of syntactic structures. The Georgetown experiment in 1954 involved fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English. The authors claimed that within three or five years, machine translation would be a solved problem. However, real progress was much slower, and after the ALPAC report in 1966, which found that ten years long research had failed to fulfill the expectations, funding for machine translation was dramatically reduced. Little further research in machine translation was conducted until the late 1980s, when the first statistical machine translation systems were developed. Some notably successful NLP systems developed in the 1960s were SHRDLU, a natural language system working in restricted "blocks worlds" with restricted vocabularies. In 1969 Roger Schank introduced the conceptual dependency theory for natural language understanding. This model, partially influenced by the work of Sydney Lamb, was extensively used by Schank's students at Yale University, such as Robert Wilensky, Wendy Lehnert, and Janet Kolodner. In 1970, William A. Woods introduced the augmented transition network (ATN) to represent natural language input. Instead of phrase structure rules ATNs used an equivalent set of finite-state automata that were called recursively. ATNs and their more general format called "generalized ATNs" continued to be used for a number of years. During the 1970s many programmers began to write 'conceptual ontologies', which structured real-world information into computer-understandable data. Examples are MARGIE (Schank, 1975), SAM (Cullingford, 1978), PAM (Wilensky, 1978), TaleSpin (Meehan, 1976), QUALM (Lehnert, 1977), Politics (Carbonell, 1979), and Plot Units (Lehnert 1981). During this time, many chatterbots were written including PARRY, Racter, and Jabberwacky. == Statistical period == Up to the 1980s, most NLP systems were based on complex sets of hand-written rules. Starting in the late 1980s, however, there was a revolution in NLP with the introduction of machine learning algorithms for language processing. This was due both to the steady increase in computational power resulting from Moore's law and the gradual lessening of the dominance of Chomskyan theories of linguistics (e.g. transformational grammar), whose theoretical underpinnings discouraged the sort of corpus linguistics that underlies the machine-learning approach to language processing. Some of the earliest-used machine learning algorithms, such as decision trees, produced systems of hard if-then rules similar to existing hand-written rules. Increasingly, however, research has focused on statistical models, which make soft, probabilistic decisions based on attaching real-valued weights to the features making up the input data. The cache language models upon which many speech recognition systems now rely are examples of such statistical models. Such models are generally more robust when given unfamiliar input, especially input that contains errors (as is very common for real-world data), and produce more reliable results when integrated into a larger system comprising multiple subtasks. === Datasets === The emergence of statistical approaches was aided by both increase in computing power and the availability of large datasets. At that time, large multilingual corpora were starting to emerge. Notably, some were produced by the Parliament of Canada and the European Union as a result of laws calling for the translation of all governmental proceedings into all official languages of the corresponding systems of government. Many of the notable early successes occurred in the field of machine translation. In 1993, the IBM alignment models were used for statistical machine translation. Compared to previous machine translation systems, which were symbolic systems manually coded by computational linguists, these systems were statistical, which allowed them to automatically learn from large textual corpora. Though these systems do not work well in situations where only small corpora is available, so data-efficient methods continue to be an area of research and development. In 2001, a one-billion-word large text corpus, scraped from the Internet, referred to as "very very large" at the time, was used for word disambiguation. To take advantage of large, unlabelled datasets, algorithms were developed for unsupervised and self-supervised learning. Generally, this task is much more difficult than supervised learning, and typically produces less accurate results for a given amount of input data. However, there is an enormous amount of non-annotated data available (including, among other things, the entire content of the World Wide Web), which can often make up for the inferior results. == Neural period == Neural language models were developed in 1990s. In 1990, the Elman network, using a recurrent neural network, encoded each word in a training set as a vector, called a word embedding, and the whole vocabulary as a vector database, allowing it to perform such tasks as sequence-predictions that are beyond the power of a simple multilayer perceptron. A shortcoming of the static embeddings was that they didn't differentiate between multiple meanings of homonyms. Yoshua Bengio developed the first neural probabilistic language model in 2000. Novel algorithms, availability of larger datasets and higher processing power made possible training of larger and larger language models. Attention mechanism was introduced by Bahdanau et al. in 2014. This work laid the foundations for the famous "Attention Is All You Need" paper that introduced the Transformer architecture in 2017. The concept of large language model (LLM) emerged in late 2010s. LLM is a language model trained with self-supervised learning on vast amount of text. Earliest public LLMs had hundreds of millions of parameters, but this number quickly rose to billion and even trillions. In recent years, advancements in deep learning and large language models have significantly enhanced the capabilities of natural language processing, leading to widespread applications in areas such as healthcare, customer service, and content generation. == Software ==

    Read more →
  • How to Choose an AI Website Builder

    How to Choose an AI Website Builder

    Shopping for the best AI website builder? An AI website builder is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI website builder slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • NovelAI

    NovelAI

    NovelAI is an online cloud-based, SaaS model, and a paid subscription service for AI-assisted storywriting and text-to-image synthesis, originally launched in beta on June 15, 2021, with the image generation feature being implemented later on October 3, 2022. NovelAI is owned and operated by Anlatan, which is headquartered in Wilmington, Delaware. == Features == NovelAI uses GPT-based large language models (LLMs) to generate storywriting and prose. It has several models, such as Calliope, Sigurd, Euterpe, Krake, and Genji, with Genji being a Japanese-language model. The service also offers encrypted servers and customizable editors. For AI art generation, which generates images from text prompts, NovelAI uses a custom version of the source-available Stable Diffusion text-to-image diffusion model called NovelAI Diffusion, which is trained on a Danbooru-based dataset. NovelAI is also capable of generating a new image based on an existing image. The NovelAI terms of service states that all generated content belongs to the user, regardless if the user is an individual or a corporation. Anlatan states that generated images are not stored locally on their servers. == History == On April 28, 2021, Anlatan officially launched NovelAI. On June 15, 2021, Anlatan released their finetuned GPT-Neo-2.7B model from EleutherAI named Calliope, after the Greek Muses. A day later, they released their Opus-exclusive GPT-J-6B finetuned model named Sigurd, after the Norse/Germanic hero. On March 21, 2023, Nvidia and CoreWeave announced Anlatan being one of the first CoreWeave customers to deploy NVIDIA's H100 Tensor Core GPUs for new LLM model inferencing and training. On April 1, 2023, Anlatan added ControlNet features to their text-to-image NovelAI Diffusion model. On May 16, 2023, Anlatan announced that they named their H100 cluster Shoggy, a reference to H.P. Lovecraft's Shoggoths, which was used to pre-train an undisclosed 8192 token context LLM in-house model. == Reception and controversy == Following the implementation of image generation, NovelAI became a widely-discussed topic in Japan, with some online commentators noting that its image synthesis features are very adept at producing close impressions of anime characters, including lolicon and shotacon imagery, while others have expressed concern that it is a paid service reliant on a diffusion model, while the original machine learning training data consists of images used without the consent of the original artists. Attorney Kosuke Terauchi notes that, since a revision of the law in 2018, it is no longer illegal in Japan for machine learning models to scrape copyrighted content from the internet to use as training data; meanwhile, in the United States where NovelAI is based, there is no specific legal framework which regulates machine learning, and thus the fair use doctrine of US copyright law applies instead. Danbooru has posted an official statement in regards to NovelAI's use of the site's content for AI training, expressing that Danbooru is not affiliated with NovelAI, and does not endorse nor condone NovelAI's use of artists' artworks for machine learning. FayerWayer described NovelAI as a service capable of generating hentai. Manga artist Izumi Ū commented that while the manga style art generated by NovelAI is highly accurate, there are still imperfections in the output, although he views these as human-like in a favourable light nonetheless. In response to the topic of NovelAI, Narugami, founder of the Japanese freelance artist commissioning website Skeb, stated on October 5, 2022 that the use of AI image generation is prohibited on the platform since 2018. Illustrations using NovelAI have been posted on social media and illustration posting sites, and by October 13, 2,111 works tagged with #NovelAI were posted on Pixiv. Pixiv has stated that it is not considering a complete elimination of creations that use AI, though it requires AI-generated posts to be marked as such and allows users to filter them out. == Incidents == On October 6, 2022, NovelAI experienced a data breach where its software's source code was leaked.

    Read more →
  • Best AI Photo Editors in 2026

    Best AI Photo Editors in 2026

    Shopping for the best AI photo editor? An AI photo editor is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it keeps getting smarter as the underlying models improve. Pricing, accuracy, and the size of the model behind the tool are the three factors that most affect daily usefulness. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI photo editor slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →
  • Trigram

    Trigram

    Trigrams are a special case of the n-gram, where n is 3. They are often used in natural language processing for performing statistical analysis of texts and in cryptography for control and use of ciphers and codes. See results of analysis of "Letter Frequencies in the English Language". == Frequency == Context is very important, varying analysis rankings and percentages are easily derived by drawing from different sample sizes, different authors; or different document types: poetry, science-fiction, technology documentation; and writing levels: stories for children versus adults, military orders, and recipes. Typical cryptanalytic frequency analysis finds that the 16 most common character-level trigrams in English are: Because encrypted messages sent by telegraph often omit punctuation and spaces, cryptographic frequency analysis of such messages includes trigrams that straddle word boundaries. This causes trigrams such as "edt" to occur frequently, even though it may never occur in any one word of those messages. == Examples == The sentence "the quick red fox jumps over the lazy brown dog" has the following word-level trigrams: the quick red quick red fox red fox jumps fox jumps over jumps over the over the lazy the lazy brown lazy brown dog And the word-level trigram "the quick red" has the following character-level trigrams (where an underscore "_" marks a space): the he_ e_q _qu qui uic ick ck_ k_r _re red

    Read more →
  • Top 10 AI Text-to-video Tools Compared (2026)

    Top 10 AI Text-to-video Tools Compared (2026)

    Trying to pick the best AI text-to-video tool? An AI text-to-video tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it scales effortlessly from a single task to thousands. The best picks balance beginner-friendly simplicity with the depth power users need, and they ship updates often. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI text-to-video tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.

    Read more →
  • Trigram tagger

    Trigram tagger

    In computational linguistics, a trigram tagger is a statistical method for automatically identifying words as being nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc. based on second order Markov models that consider triples of consecutive words. It is trained on a text corpus as a method to predict the next word, taking the product of the probabilities of unigram, bigram and trigram. In speech recognition, algorithms utilizing trigram-tagger score better than those algorithms utilizing IIMM tagger but less well than Net tagger. The description of the trigram tagger is provided by Brants (2000).

    Read more →
  • AI Background Removers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    AI Background Removers: Free vs Paid (2026)

    Looking for the best AI background remover? An AI background remover is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI background remover slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.

    Read more →
  • Nvidia Omniverse

    Nvidia Omniverse

    Omniverse is a real-time 3D graphics collaboration platform created by Nvidia. It has been used for applications in the visual effects and "digital twin" industrial simulation industries. Omniverse makes extensive use of the Universal Scene Description (USD) format. == Third-party Integrations == Omniverse supports integration with external computer-aided design tools through third-party connectors. For example, academic work has demonstrated a connector linking Omniverse with the open-source CAD system FreeCAD, enabling collaborative access to CAD geometry via the Omniverse Nucleus server and extending Omniverse usage beyond media and entertainment workflows.

    Read more →
  • Round-trip translation

    Round-trip translation

    Round-trip translation (RTT), also known as back-and-forth translation, recursive translation and bi-directional translation, is the process of translating a word, phrase or text into another language (forward translation), then translating the result back into the original language (back translation), using machine translation (MT) software. It is often used by laypeople to evaluate a machine translation system, or to test whether a text is suitable for MT when they are unfamiliar with the target language. Because the resulting text can often differ substantially from the original, RTT can also be a source of entertainment. == Software quality == To compare the quality of different machine translation systems, users perform RTT and compare the resulting text to the original. The theory is that the closer the result of the RTT is to the original text, the higher the quality of the machine translation system. One of the problems with this technique is that if there is a problem with the resulting text it is impossible to know whether the error occurred in the forward translation, in the back translation, or in both. In addition, it is possible to get a good back translation from a bad forward translation. A study using the automatic evaluation methods BLEU and F-score compared five different free online translation programs, evaluating the quality of both the forward translation and the back translation, and found no correlation between the quality of the forward translation and the quality of the back translation (i.e., a high quality forward translation did not always correspond to a high quality back translation). The author concluded that RTT was a poor method of predicting the quality of machine translation software. This conclusion was reinforced by a more in-depth study also using automatic evaluation methods. A subsequent study which included human evaluation of the back translation in addition to automatic evaluation methods found that RTT might have some ability to predict the quality of a machine translation system not on a sentence-by-sentence basis but for larger texts. == Suitability of text for machine translation == It is also suggested that RTT can be used to determine whether a text is suitable for machine translation. The idea being that if RTT results in a text that is close to the original, the text is suitable for MT. If after using RTT, the resulting text is inaccurate, the source text can then be edited until a satisfactory result is achieved. One of the studies looking at RTT as a means of measuring MT system quality also looked at its ability to predict whether a text was suitable for machine translation. It found that using different types of text also did not result in any correlation between the quality of the forward translation and the quality of the back translation. In contrast another study using human evaluation found that there was a correlation between the quality of the forward translation and the back translation and that this correlation could be used to estimate the quality of the forward translation. This correlation could be used to estimate the quality of the forward translation and by simplifying the source text, improve the quality of the forward translation. == Entertainment == Although the use of RTT for assessing MT system quality or the suitability of a text for MT is in doubt, it is a way to have fun with machine translation. The text produced from an RTT can be comically bad. At one time websites existed for the sole purpose of performing RTT for fun. Other variations send the text through several languages before translating it back into the original or continue translating the text back and forth until it reaches equilibrium (i.e., the result of the back translation is identical to the text used for the forward translation). RTT as entertainment appeared in Philip K. Dick's novel Galactic Pot-Healer. The main character runs book titles and sayings through RTT then has his friends try to guess the original. The Australian television show Spicks and Specks had a contest called "Turning Japanese" which used RTT on song lyrics. Contestants needed to correctly guess the title of the song from which the lyrics were taken.

    Read more →
  • Evaluation of machine translation

    Evaluation of machine translation

    Various methods for the evaluation for machine translation have been employed. This article focuses on the evaluation of the output of machine translation, rather than on performance or usability evaluation. == Round-trip translation == A typical way for lay people to assess machine translation quality is to translate from a source language to a target language and back to the source language with the same engine. Though intuitively this may seem like a good method of evaluation, it has been shown that round-trip translation is a "poor predictor of quality". The reason why it is such a poor predictor of quality is reasonably intuitive. A round-trip translation is not testing one system, but two systems: the language pair of the engine for translating into the target language, and the language pair translating back from the target language. Consider the following examples of round-trip translation performed from English to Italian and Portuguese from Somers (2005): In the first example, where the text is translated into Italian then back into English—the English text is significantly garbled, but the Italian is a serviceable translation. In the second example, the text translated back into English is perfect, but the Portuguese translation is meaningless; the program thought "tit" was a reference to a tit (bird), which was intended for a "tat", a word it did not understand. While round-trip translation may be useful to generate a "surplus of fun," the methodology is deficient for serious study of machine translation quality. == Human evaluation == This section covers two of the large scale evaluation studies that have had significant impact on the field—the ALPAC 1966 study and the ARPA study. === Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee (ALPAC) === One of the constituent parts of the ALPAC report was a study comparing different levels of human translation with machine translation output, using human subjects as judges. The human judges were specially trained for the purpose. The evaluation study compared an MT system translating from Russian into English with human translators, on two variables. The variables studied were "intelligibility" and "fidelity". Intelligibility was a measure of how "understandable" the sentence was, and was measured on a scale of 1–9. Fidelity was a measure of how much information the translated sentence retained compared to the original, and was measured on a scale of 0–9. Each point on the scale was associated with a textual description. For example, 3 on the intelligibility scale was described as "Generally unintelligible; it tends to read like nonsense but, with a considerable amount of reflection and study, one can at least hypothesize the idea intended by the sentence". Intelligibility was measured without reference to the original, while fidelity was measured indirectly. The translated sentence was presented, and after reading it and absorbing the content, the original sentence was presented. The judges were asked to rate the original sentence on informativeness. So, the more informative the original sentence, the lower the quality of the translation. The study showed that the variables were highly correlated when the human judgment was averaged per sentence. The variation among raters was small, but the researchers recommended that at the very least, three or four raters should be used. The evaluation methodology managed to separate translations by humans from translations by machines with ease. The study concluded that, "highly reliable assessments can be made of the quality of human and machine translations". === Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) === As part of the Human Language Technologies Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created a methodology to evaluate machine translation systems, and continues to perform evaluations based on this methodology. The evaluation programme was instigated in 1991, and continues to this day. Details of the programme can be found in White et al. (1994) and White (1995). The evaluation programme involved testing several systems based on different theoretical approaches; statistical, rule-based and human-assisted. A number of methods for the evaluation of the output from these systems were tested in 1992 and the most recent suitable methods were selected for inclusion in the programmes for subsequent years. The methods were; comprehension evaluation, quality panel evaluation, and evaluation based on adequacy and fluency. Comprehension evaluation aimed to directly compare systems based on the results from multiple choice comprehension tests, as in Church et al. (1993). The texts chosen were a set of articles in English on the subject of financial news. These articles were translated by professional translators into a series of language pairs, and then translated back into English using the machine translation systems. It was decided that this was not adequate for a standalone method of comparing systems and as such abandoned due to issues with the modification of meaning in the process of translating from English. The idea of quality panel evaluation was to submit translations to a panel of expert native English speakers who were professional translators and get them to evaluate them. The evaluations were done on the basis of a metric, modelled on a standard US government metric used to rate human translations. This was good from the point of view that the metric was "externally motivated", since it was not specifically developed for machine translation. However, the quality panel evaluation was very difficult to set up logistically, as it necessitated having a number of experts together in one place for a week or more, and furthermore for them to reach consensus. This method was also abandoned. Along with a modified form of the comprehension evaluation (re-styled as informativeness evaluation), the most popular method was to obtain ratings from monolingual judges for segments of a document. The judges were presented with a segment, and asked to rate it for two variables, adequacy and fluency. Adequacy is a rating of how much information is transferred between the original and the translation, and fluency is a rating of how good the English is. This technique was found to cover the relevant parts of the quality panel evaluation, while at the same time being easier to deploy, as it didn't require expert judgment. Measuring systems based on adequacy and fluency, along with informativeness is now the standard methodology for the ARPA evaluation program. == Automatic evaluation == In the context of this article, a metric is a measurement. A metric that evaluates machine translation output represents the quality of the output. The quality of a translation is inherently subjective, there is no objective or quantifiable "good." Therefore, any metric must assign quality scores so they correlate with the human judgment of quality. That is, a metric should score highly translations that humans score highly, and give low scores to those humans give low scores. Human judgment is the benchmark for assessing automatic metrics, as humans are the end-users of any translation output. The measure of evaluation for metrics is correlation with human judgment. This is generally done at two levels, at the sentence level, where scores are calculated by the metric for a set of translated sentences, and then correlated against human judgment for the same sentences. And at the corpus level, where scores over the sentences are aggregated for both human judgments and metric judgments, and these aggregate scores are then correlated. Figures for correlation at the sentence level are rarely reported, although Banerjee et al. (2005) do give correlation figures that show that, at least for their metric, sentence-level correlation is substantially worse than corpus level correlation. While not widely reported, it has been noted that the genre, or domain, of a text has an effect on the correlation obtained when using metrics. Coughlin (2003) reports that comparing the candidate text against a single reference translation does not adversely affect the correlation of metrics when working in a restricted domain text. Even if a metric correlates well with human judgment in one study on one corpus, this successful correlation may not carry over to another corpus. Good metric performance, across text types or domains, is important for the reusability of the metric. A metric that only works for text in a specific domain is useful, but less useful than one that works across many domains—because creating a new metric for every new evaluation or domain is undesirable. Another important factor in the usefulness of an evaluation metric is to have a good correlation, even when working with small amounts of data, that is candidate sentences and reference translations. Turian et al. (2003) point out that, "Any MT evaluation measure is less reliable on shorter translations", and

    Read more →
  • Volker Markl

    Volker Markl

    Volker Markl (born 1971) is a German computer scientist and database systems researcher. == Career == In 1999, Markl received his PhD in computer science under the direction of Rudolf Bayer at the Technical University of Munich. His doctoral research led to the development of the UB-Tree. From 1997 to 2000, he was research group leader at FORWISS, the Bavarian research center for knowledge-based systems. From 2001 to 2008, he was project leader at the IBM Almaden Research Center, Silicon Valley. Since 2008, he has been full professor and Chair of the Database Systems and Information Management Group at Technische Universität Berlin. Since 2014, he is head of the Intelligent Analytics for Massive Data Research Department at the German Research Centre for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI), Berlin. From 2014 to 2020, he was director of the Berlin Big Data Center (BBDC). From 2018 to 2020, he was co-director of the Berlin Machine Learning Center (BZML). Together with Klaus-Robert Müller he became director of the new Berlin Institute for the Foundations of Learning and Data (BIFOLD), after both BBDC and the BZML merged into BIFOLD in 2020. From 2010 through 2019, he led the DFG funded Stratosphere project, which led to the establishment of Apache Flink. In 2018, he was elected president of the VLDB Endowment for a six years period that ended in 2024. == Research == Markl’s research interests lie at the intersection of distributed systems, scalable data processing, and machine learning. == Awards and honors == Markl was elected member of the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities in 2021. Since 2026 he is member of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. His work was honoured with several awards, including: 2025 ICDE Best Paper Award 2021 ICDE Best Paper Award 2021 BTW Best Paper Award 2020 ACM SIGMOD Best Paper Award 2020 ACM Fellow 2019 EDBT Best Paper Award 2017 BTW Best Paper Award 2017 EDBT Best Demonstration Award 2016 ACM SIGMOD Research Highlight Award 2014 VLDB Best Paper Award 2012 IBM Faculty Award 2012 IBM Shared University Research Grant 2010 Hewlett Packard Open Innovation Award 2005 IBM Outstanding Technological Achievement Award 2005 IBM Pat Goldberg Best Paper Award

    Read more →
  • Cloud-native computing

    Cloud-native computing

    Cloud native computing is an approach in software development that utilizes cloud computing to "build and run scalable applications in modern, dynamic environments such as public, private, and hybrid clouds". These technologies, such as containers, microservices, serverless functions, cloud native processors and immutable infrastructure, deployed via declarative code are common elements of this architectural style. Cloud native technologies focus on minimizing users' operational burden. Cloud native techniques "enable loosely coupled systems that are resilient, manageable, and observable. Combined with robust automation, they allow engineers to make high-impact changes frequently and predictably with minimal toil." This independence contributes to the overall resilience of the system, as issues in one area do not necessarily cripple the entire application. Additionally, such systems are easier to manage, and monitor, given their modular nature, which simplifies tracking performance and identifying issues. Frequently, cloud-native applications are built as a set of microservices that run in Open Container Initiative compliant containers, such as Containerd, and may be orchestrated in Kubernetes and managed and deployed using DevOps and Git CI workflows (although there is a large amount of competing open source that supports cloud-native development). The advantage of using containers is the ability to package all software needed to execute into one executable package. The container runs in a virtualized environment, which isolates the contained application from its environment.

    Read more →
  • Simon Godsill

    Simon Godsill

    Simon John Godsill (born 2 December 1965) is professor of statistical signal processing at the University of Cambridge, and a professorial fellow at Corpus Christi College. He is also a member of the Centre for Science and Policy. His main area of research is Bayesian statistics and stochastic sampling methodologies, particularly particle filtering. == Education == Godsill obtained both undergraduate and Ph.D. degrees from the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, whilst a member of Selwyn College. He obtained a first class degree in the Electrical and Information Sciences Tripos. The title of his 1993 Ph.D. thesis was "The Restoration of Degraded Audio Signals" and his Ph.D. supervisor was Peter Rayner, whom he shared with Michael Richard Lynch. == Career == Godsill has published over 250 articles in peer reviewed journals, along with the books Digital audio restoration: a statistical model based approach and Compressed sensing & sparse filtering. == Business interests == Godsill is currently a director of CEDAR Audio Ltd, a Cambridge-based company that applies Bayesian mathematics for purposes of noise reduction in audio data. In February 2005, the company received a Sci-Tech Academy Award (a 'Technical Oscar') for its services to the movie industry, and a stream of innovations appeared over the following years with corresponding recognition including induction into the Audio Technology Hall of Fame (2008), a Cinema Audio Society Award (2009). Godsill is also a director at Input Dynamics Ltd, a Cambridge-based company that applies Bayesian techniques to touch screen technology. Godsill is involved with the research effort at BMLL Technologies, a Cambridge spin-off working in the field of machine learning application in the financial sector.

    Read more →
  • AI Paraphrasing Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    AI Paraphrasing Tools Reviews: What Actually Works in 2026

    Comparing the best AI paraphrasing tool? An AI paraphrasing tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it lowers the barrier so anyone can produce professional output. Privacy matters too: check whether your data trains the model and whether a no-log or enterprise tier is available. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI paraphrasing tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. We tested the leading options and ranked them by quality, value, and ease of use.

    Read more →