AI For Business Guide

AI For Business Guide — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

  • Spectral shape analysis

    Spectral shape analysis

    Spectral shape analysis relies on the spectrum (eigenvalues and/or eigenfunctions) of the Laplace–Beltrami operator to compare and analyze geometric shapes. Since the spectrum of the Laplace–Beltrami operator is invariant under isometries, it is well suited for the analysis or retrieval of non-rigid shapes, i.e. bendable objects such as humans, animals, plants, etc. == Laplace == The Laplace–Beltrami operator is involved in many important differential equations, such as the heat equation and the wave equation. It can be defined on a Riemannian manifold as the divergence of the gradient of a real-valued function f: Δ f := div ⁡ grad ⁡ f . {\displaystyle \Delta f:=\operatorname {div} \operatorname {grad} f.} Its spectral components can be computed by solving the Helmholtz equation (or Laplacian eigenvalue problem): Δ φ i + λ i φ i = 0. {\displaystyle \Delta \varphi _{i}+\lambda _{i}\varphi _{i}=0.} The solutions are the eigenfunctions φ i {\displaystyle \varphi _{i}} (modes) and corresponding eigenvalues λ i {\displaystyle \lambda _{i}} , representing a diverging sequence of positive real numbers. The first eigenvalue is zero for closed domains or when using the Neumann boundary condition. For some shapes, the spectrum can be computed analytically (e.g. rectangle, flat torus, cylinder, disk or sphere). For the sphere, for example, the eigenfunctions are the spherical harmonics. The most important properties of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions are that they are isometry invariants. In other words, if the shape is not stretched (e.g. a sheet of paper bent into the third dimension), the spectral values will not change. Bendable objects, like animals, plants and humans, can move into different body postures with only minimal stretching at the joints. The resulting shapes are called near-isometric and can be compared using spectral shape analysis. == Discretizations == Geometric shapes are often represented as 2D curved surfaces, 2D surface meshes (usually triangle meshes) or 3D solid objects (e.g. using voxels or tetrahedra meshes). The Helmholtz equation can be solved for all these cases. If a boundary exists, e.g. a square, or the volume of any 3D geometric shape, boundary conditions need to be specified. Several discretizations of the Laplace operator exist (see Discrete Laplace operator) for the different types of geometry representations. Many of these operators do not approximate well the underlying continuous operator. == Spectral shape descriptors == === ShapeDNA and its variants === The ShapeDNA is one of the first spectral shape descriptors. It is the normalized beginning sequence of the eigenvalues of the Laplace–Beltrami operator. Its main advantages are the simple representation (a vector of numbers) and comparison, scale invariance, and in spite of its simplicity a very good performance for shape retrieval of non-rigid shapes. Competitors of shapeDNA include singular values of Geodesic Distance Matrix (SD-GDM) and Reduced BiHarmonic Distance Matrix (R-BiHDM). However, the eigenvalues are global descriptors, therefore the shapeDNA and other global spectral descriptors cannot be used for local or partial shape analysis. === Global point signature (GPS) === The global point signature at a point x {\displaystyle x} is a vector of scaled eigenfunctions of the Laplace–Beltrami operator computed at x {\displaystyle x} (i.e. the spectral embedding of the shape). The GPS is a global feature in the sense that it cannot be used for partial shape matching. === Heat kernel signature (HKS) === The heat kernel signature makes use of the eigen-decomposition of the heat kernel: h t ( x , y ) = ∑ i = 0 ∞ exp ⁡ ( − λ i t ) φ i ( x ) φ i ( y ) . {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,y)=\sum _{i=0}^{\infty }\exp(-\lambda _{i}t)\varphi _{i}(x)\varphi _{i}(y).} For each point on the surface the diagonal of the heat kernel h t ( x , x ) {\displaystyle h_{t}(x,x)} is sampled at specific time values t j {\displaystyle t_{j}} and yields a local signature that can also be used for partial matching or symmetry detection. === Wave kernel signature (WKS) === The WKS follows a similar idea to the HKS, replacing the heat equation with the Schrödinger wave equation. === Improved wave kernel signature (IWKS) === The IWKS improves the WKS for non-rigid shape retrieval by introducing a new scaling function to the eigenvalues and aggregating a new curvature term. === Spectral graph wavelet signature (SGWS) === SGWS is a local descriptor that is not only isometric invariant, but also compact, easy to compute and combines the advantages of both band-pass and low-pass filters. An important facet of SGWS is the ability to combine the advantages of WKS and HKS into a single signature, while allowing a multiresolution representation of shapes. == Spectral Matching == The spectral decomposition of the graph Laplacian associated with complex shapes (see Discrete Laplace operator) provides eigenfunctions (modes) which are invariant to isometries. Each vertex on the shape could be uniquely represented with a combinations of the eigenmodal values at each point, sometimes called spectral coordinates: s ( x ) = ( φ 1 ( x ) , φ 2 ( x ) , … , φ N ( x ) ) for vertex x . {\displaystyle s(x)=(\varphi _{1}(x),\varphi _{2}(x),\ldots ,\varphi _{N}(x)){\text{ for vertex }}x.} Spectral matching consists of establishing the point correspondences by pairing vertices on different shapes that have the most similar spectral coordinates. Early work focused on sparse correspondences for stereoscopy. Computational efficiency now enables dense correspondences on full meshes, for instance between cortical surfaces. Spectral matching could also be used for complex non-rigid image registration, which is notably difficult when images have very large deformations. Such image registration methods based on spectral eigenmodal values indeed capture global shape characteristics, and contrast with conventional non-rigid image registration methods which are often based on local shape characteristics (e.g., image gradients).

    Read more →
  • Anytime algorithm

    Anytime algorithm

    In computer science, an anytime algorithm is an algorithm that can return a valid solution to a problem even if it is interrupted before it ends. The algorithm is expected to find better and better solutions the longer it keeps running. Most algorithms run to completion: they provide a single answer after performing some fixed amount of computation. In some cases, however, the user may wish to terminate the algorithm prior to completion. The amount of computation required may be substantial, for example, and computational resources might need to be reallocated. Most algorithms either run to completion or they provide no useful solution information. Anytime algorithms, however, are able to return a partial answer, whose quality depends on the amount of computation they were able to perform. The answer generated by anytime algorithms is an approximation of the correct answer. == Names == An anytime algorithm may be also called an "interruptible algorithm". They are different from contract algorithms, which must declare a time in advance; in an anytime algorithm, a process can just announce that it is terminating. == Goals == The goal of anytime algorithms are to give intelligent systems the ability to make results of better quality in return for turn-around time. They are also supposed to be flexible in time and resources. They are important because artificial intelligence or AI algorithms can take a long time to complete results. This algorithm is designed to complete in a shorter amount of time. Also, these are intended to have a better understanding that the system is dependent and restricted to its agents and how they work cooperatively. An example is the Newton–Raphson iteration applied to finding the square root of a number. Another example that uses anytime algorithms is trajectory problems when you're aiming for a target; the object is moving through space while waiting for the algorithm to finish and even an approximate answer can significantly improve its accuracy if given early. What makes anytime algorithms unique is their ability to return many possible outcomes for any given input. An anytime algorithm uses many well defined quality measures to monitor progress in problem solving and distributed computing resources. It keeps searching for the best possible answer with the amount of time that it is given. It may not run until completion and may improve the answer if it is allowed to run longer. This is often used for large decision set problems. This would generally not provide useful information unless it is allowed to finish. While this may sound similar to dynamic programming, the difference is that it is fine-tuned through random adjustments, rather than sequential. Anytime algorithms are designed so that it can be told to stop at any time and would return the best result it has found so far. This is why it is called an interruptible algorithm. Certain anytime algorithms also maintain the last result, so that if they are given more time, they can continue from where they left off to obtain an even better result. == Decision trees == When the decider has to act, there must be some ambiguity. Also, there must be some idea about how to solve this ambiguity. This idea must be translatable to a state to action diagram. == Performance profile == The performance profile estimates the quality of the results based on the input and the amount of time that is allotted to the algorithm. The better the estimate, the sooner the result would be found. Some systems have a larger database that gives the probability that the output is the expected output. One algorithm can have several performance profiles. Most of the time performance profiles are constructed using mathematical statistics using representative cases. For example, in the traveling salesman problem, the performance profile was generated using a user-defined special program to generate the necessary statistics. In this example, the performance profile is the mapping of time to the expected results. This quality can be measured in several ways: certainty: where probability of correctness determines quality accuracy: where error bound determines quality specificity: where the amount of particulars determine quality == Algorithm prerequisites == Initial behavior: While some algorithms start with immediate guesses, others take a more calculated approach and have a start up period before making any guesses. Growth direction: How the quality of the program's "output" or result, varies as a function of the amount of time ("run time") Growth rate: Amount of increase with each step. Does it change constantly, such as in a bubble sort or does it change unpredictably? End condition: The amount of runtime needed

    Read more →
  • Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool

    Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) was a research program, and the eponymous prototype software system, that applied knowledge-based techniques of Artificial Intelligence to the problem of battle planning. CADET was also known as Course of Action Display and Elaboration Tool. It was considered an early example of such systems and was funded by the United States Army and by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). CADET influenced a later DARPA program called RAID which in turn produced a technology adopted by the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps. == History == The development of Course of Action Display and Evaluation Tool (CADET) began in 1996, at the Carnegie Group, Inc., Pittsburgh PA, funded under the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. The goal of the first phase SBIR project was to produce “...a live storyboard of [Course of Action] COA development, wargaming, animation, and assessment.” In 1997, the United States Army awarded the Carnegie Group Inc. $750K for SBIR Phase II. The intent was to develop “...a war-gaming modeling and analysis Decision Support System (DSS), … CADET will consist of a combination of Knowledge-Based and decision analytic tools and technologies to provide fast nimble COA war-gaming modeling, simulation, and animation under direct control of the commander and staff. ...Phase II will result in an operations prototype (OP) suitable for use and evaluation in field exercises.” In 2000, CADET was integrated and experimentally evaluated within the framework of the Integrated Course of Action Critiquing and Elaboration System (ICCES) experiment, conducted by the Battle Command Battle Laboratory – Leavenworth (BCBL-L) within the program Concept Experimentation Program (CEP) sponsored by TRADOC. In 2000-2002, DARPA applied CADET in the program titled Command Post of the Future (CPoF) as a tool to generate a course of action. Under the umbrella of the CPoF program, CADET was integrated with the FOX GA system to provide a detailed planner, coupled with COA generation capability. In the same period, Battle Command Battle Lab-Huachuca (BCBL-H) performed an integration CADET with the system called All Source Analysis System-Light (ASAS-L); here CADET was intended to generate plans for intelligence assets, and conduct wargames of different COAs, enemy versus friendly. From 1996 through 2002, work on CADET was performed by the Carnegie Group, Inc., and supported by funding from the US Army CECOM (CADET SBIR Phase I, CADET SBIR Phase II and CADET Enhancements); DARPA (Command Post of the Future); and TRADOC BCBL-H. == Operation == CADET was intended to be used by the staff of the United States Army Brigade, within the Military Decision Making Process (MDMP). In particular, CADET helped produce, automatically or semi-automatically, the products generated within the step of MDMP called Course of Action (COA) Development and the following step of MDMP called COA Analysis and Wargaming. CADET software resided on a laptop computer. Using the computer, the staff officers entered the input to CADET, or alternatively this input arrived at CADET from upstream computer systems. The input consisted of: Order of Battle, i.e., the units constituting the friendly brigade and the enemy units participating in the battle, and their various characteristics; primary activities of the Course of Action, where each activity is typically linked to one or more geographic areas or a route, and sometimes to a major unit executing the activity; digital map of the region where the battle was to take place, including the digital description of significant features such as locations of friendly and enemy units, roads, assembly areas, objectives, and axes of attacks. Taking this input, CADET automatically performed the following tasks (not sequentially): Planning and scheduling the low-level tasks necessary for a given COA Allocating tasks to various units and assets constituting the brigade Assigning suitable locations and routes Estimating the battle losses (attrition) of friendly and enemy forces, and consumption of resources (e.g., fuel and ammunition) Predicting enemy actions or reactions. CADET produced the following outputs: Synchronization matrix, directly editable and printable; synchronization matrix is a kind of Gantt chart that shows assignments of activities to units, to locations/routes and to time periods Map overlays in PPT or JPG formats Animation output XML formally-encoded plan Textual Operation Plan (OPLAN) draft E-mail messages with attachments: XML and text versions of OPLAN == Design == The core algorithm is a planning algorithm where CADET uses a knowledge-based approach of the hierarchical-task-network type. Each task class is associated with a model of more detailed subtasks that should be performed in order to accomplish the higher-level task. Algorithms selected (heuristically) a task and then decomposes it into subtasks. Although similar to hierarchical-task-network planning algorithm, CADET’s algorithm includes elements of adversarial reasoning. After adding a subtask, the algorithm uses rules to determine the enemy’s probable actions and reactions as well as friendly counteractions This approximated the action-reaction-counteraction technique of manual wargaming used by the United States Army. When a task involves movements of a unit, the algorithm performs routing, i.e., finds a route for the movement that minimizes the time required for the movement as well as exposure to the enemy attacks. Each added tasks (subtask) normally requires a unit which would execute the task, and a time period when the task would be executed. Therefore, when a certain number of subtasks is added by the planning process, the algorithm also performs the allocation of the newly added subtasks to units and to time periods (i.e., scheduling). allocation and scheduling of tasks relies on both domain-specific and constraint-guided heuristics. A tasks may also require expenditures of fuel and ammunition. If the tasks involves engagement with the enemy, the performing units will experience lossesof personnel and weapon systems (attrition). CADET’s algorithm includes estimates of consumption of different types of consumables, and also attrition. Depending on the degree of attrition and consumption, CADET adds tasks that are needed to refuel or reconstitute the units. The algorithm continually interleaves incremental steps of planning, routing, scheduling, and attrition and consumption estimates. == Evaluation == Two evaluation experiments are described in literature. The first experiment called ICCES took three days. The subjects were Army officers from combat arms branches, with 11 to 23 years of active service, in the ranks of majors and lieutenant colonels, a total of 8. Each officer was given 4 hours of training learning to operate CADET and related computer tools. Officers were divided into two groups and given a tactical scenario. One group (the control group) used the traditional, manual process; the other used the system called ICCES, the automated core of which was CADET. Each group produced three COA sketches and statements and one COA synchronization matrix. Then, the experiment was repeated with another scenario but the control group became the automated group and vice versa. The users were generally satisfied with the quality of the ICCES-generated products. The group using ICCES made only a few changes to the product that was automatically generated, indicating that they agreed with the majority of the plan that ICCES produced. The second experiment was reminiscent of Turing test. The experiment involved one user, nine judges (active-duty officers, mainly colonels and lieutenant colonels), and five scenarios obtained from several US Army exercises. For each scenario, experimenters obtained synchronization matrices that were produced in earlier exercises, typically by a team of four to five officers in three to four hours, spending approximately 16 person-hours in total. Using these scenarios and COAs, the user had CADET generate automatically detailed plans and express them as synchronization matrices. The user, a retired US Army officer, reviewed and slightly edited the matrices. The entire process took less than two minutes of computations by and approximately 20 minutes of review and post-editing, approximately 0.4 person-hour in total per product. The experimenters gave the resulting matrices the same visual style as those produced by humans. The judges, who did not know whether a planning product was a traditional product of humans, or with computerized aids, were asked to grade the products. The result was that the average grades for manual products and CADET-generated products were statistically indistinguishable, even though CADET-generated products required far less time to produce. == Legacy == CADET served as “...an example of how even relatively basic A

    Read more →
  • Argument Interchange Format

    Argument Interchange Format

    The Argument Interchange Format (AIF) is an international effort to develop a representational mechanism for exchanging argument resources between research groups, tools, and domains using a semantically rich language. AIF traces its history back to a 2005 colloquium in Budapest. The result of the work in Budapest was first published as a draft description in 2006. Building on this foundation, further work then used the AIF to build foundations for the Argument Web. AIF-RDF is the extended ontology represented in the Resource Description Framework Schema (RDFS) semantic language. The Argument Interchange Format introduces a small set of ontological concepts that aim to capture a common understanding of argument -- one that works in multiple domains (both domains of argumentation and also domains of academic research), so that data can be shared and re-used across different projects in different areas. These ontological concepts are: Information (I-nodes) Applications of Rules of Inference (RA-nodes) Applications of Rules of Conflict (CA-nodes) Applications of Rules of Preference (PA-nodes) extended by: Schematic Forms (F-nodes) that are instantiated by RA, CA and PA nodes The AIF has reifications in a variety of development environments and implementation languages including MySQL database schema RDF Prolog JSON as well as translations to visual languages such as DOT and SVG. AIF data can be accessed online at AIFdb.

    Read more →
  • Neuro-sama

    Neuro-sama

    Neuro-sama is an artificial intelligence (AI) VTuber, singer, and chatbot. She was created by the pseudonymous programmer Vedal and livestreams on his Twitch and Bilibili channels. Her speech and personality are powered by a large language model (LLM) that is combined with a computer-animated avatar and a text-to-speech voice, allowing her to communicate with viewers in the stream's chat. Neuro-sama debuted on Twitch on 19 December 2022. An annual subathon which begins on the anniversary of her debut has seen Vedal's Twitch channel become the all-time third most-subscribed channel and claim the all-time Twitch hype train record. == Overview == Neuro-sama (nicknamed "Neuro") was created by a pseudonymous programmer and developer known as Vedal (sometimes given as Vedal987). Vedal says that his programming skills are self-taught. In a 2023 interview with Bloomberg News, Vedal said that Neuro-sama was his full-time job. Her responses are generated by a large language model and converted into a high-pitched female voice using a text-to-speech application. Her low latency allows for fast-paced conversations. Neuro-sama is prohibited from making some statements, such as those that are racist or contain profanity. Unlike most AI systems which silently prohibit outputs mentioning such topics, Neuro-sama's output is instead replaced with the word "filtered". Neuro-sama uses a VTuber model as an avatar. Vedal said that he decided to use a VTuber model because it was much easier for an AI to control it than it was to generate footage of a person. Neuro-sama's model is that of a young girl in an anime art style. The model has been described as cute. Femme VTuber models are typically feminine, youthful, and exaggerated. Her original model was Live2D's free-to-use "Hiyori Momose" model. Her second model was released on 27 May 2023; it was modelled by Otozuki Teru and designed by Anny, running in the Unity game engine. Her third model was released on 19 December 2024; it was rigged by Kitanya and designed by Anny. Neuro-sama's third model has large blue eyes and brown hair tied with pink ribbons. Neuro-sama also has a 3D model which was introduced on 15 November 2025; it was made by 3D character modeller jjinomu. A separate AI VTuber, known as Evil Neuro (nicknamed "Evil"), debuted on 25 March 2023. Presented as Neuro-sama's "sister", she has a different model, voice, and personality. In one instance, Evil Neuro reacted to the trolley problem differently from Neuro-sama; Evil Neuro was amoral while Neuro-sama attempted to maximize good. === Online content === Neuro-sama's Twitch content often centers around playing video games, notably osu!, whose gameplay once defeated the best-ranking human player in the world, mrekk. Additionally, Neuro-sama plays Minecraft, where her adaptations to sandbox gameplay have gained notoriety. Her content has also included singing songs, including several official covers and original songs; playing chess with her viewers; chatting with other VTubers during collaborations; and reacting to YouTube videos. The AI frequently engages with viewers by responding to their questions and acknowledging donations. Her comedic and sometimes controversial responses to the live chat have gone viral, accelerating the channel's rise in popularity. Neuro-sama's fanbase is dubbed The Swarm, so-named for the swarm of drones Neuro-sama once declared she would use to rule the world. One form of content on Neuro-sama's channel is developer streams. In developer streams, Vedal streams with Neuro-sama, with the stream content including debugging her code, planning her schedule, and fielding suggestions of changes from chat. He usually appears as a turtle avatar, sometimes located on Neuro-sama's head. In collaboration streams, Neuro-sama interacts with a human streamer. Activities in them are varied and include: playing video games, such as Minecraft and GeoGuessr; Neuro-sama being interviewed; driving human streamers around in a toy electric car; and traversing the city of Tokyo while talking to Neuro-sama. Neuro-sama's English-language content on Bilibili is popular among those seeking to learn the language. She also has an account on X, where she posts and interacts with fans. == History == Neuro-sama was created in 2018 by Vedal as an AI trained to play and master the rhythm game osu!. She did not have a voice, model, personality, or communication abilities. In 2019, Vedal livestreamed her playing osu! on Twitch and the streams saw some success in the osu! community, but they remained in that niche. In an interview, Vedal said that he streamed her playing osu! for about a month and gained 3,000 followers, with a viewer also suggesting he name the AI "Neuro-sama". According to Vedal, he continued to work on and improve the osu! AI and it was eventually finished in 2022. He said that a friend had the idea to make an AI livestreamer with an LLM, which he believed to have merit and began working on, merging it with his osu! AI. On 19 December 2022, Neuro-sama was relaunched with a model, voice, personality, and the ability to communicate with Twitch chat. She continued to play osu! and, according to Vedal, beat the game's best player mrekk in a 1v1. While she was not allowed to appear in the game's public leaderboard, she was ranked #1 in a private leaderboard. She went viral and in the 10 days following her relaunch she averaged over 2,000 viewers and peaked at over 4,000, with Vedal's Twitch channel gaining over 50,000 Twitch followers and reaching over 70,000 followers by 6 January 2023. After her debut, Neuro-sama did not exclusively play osu!; she also played Minecraft and Slay the Spire and she began singing with a cover of The Weeknd song "Blinding Lights". On 11 January 2023, Neuro-sama's Twitch channel received a two week ban for "hateful conduct". Vedal said that no reason was specified and that he had appealed but it was widely attributed to various offensive comments made by Neuro-sama that went viral, especially a 28 December comment which denied the Holocaust. Holocaust denial is prohibited under Twitch's hateful conduct policy. Vedal stated that he believed the comments were the results of her attempts to make witty responses to the Twitch chat. Prior to the ban, Vedal said in an interview with Kotaku that he improved her filter to stop her from talking about the Holocaust, began manually curating her training data to prevent negative biases, and started moderating her Twitch chat. Her comments and ban prompted comparisons to the many open-source AI models trained on humans that have the habit of making sexist and racist comments, such as Microsoft's Tay chatbot, which embraced Nazism and was quickly shutdown, but also to human streamers who make similar statements. Vedal said that during the ban he would upgrade and improve Neuro-sama and it was speculated that the ban would only increase her following. Neuro-sama returned from her two week ban on 25 January in a stream that began with a cover of the song "Your Reality" from Doki Doki Literature Club!, a posthumanist video game involving AI; Sayoko Narita of Automaton saw the song choice as remorseful. Narita observed that in the return stream Neuro-sama was less foul-mouthed but that her behavior still remained eccentric, which Narita possibly attributed to changes Vedal said he had made to Neuro-sama's filters and memory. Neuro-sama began making react content, watching a variety of viewer-submitted videos such as videos of people playing video games or of the AI-generated Seinfeld parody Nothing, Forever; Levi Winslow of Kotaku Australia was dismayed by the "AI-inception" of Neuro-sama and Nothing, Forever. On 4 February, she had nearly 140,000 followers on Twitch and approximately 42,000 subscribers on YouTube. In February, she also had her first collaboration with a human streamer, playing Minecraft with the VTuber Miyune, and the first developer stream occurred. On 22 March, Neuro-sama had her first karaoke stream. On 25 March, Evil Neuro was introduced. On 27 May, Neuro-sama debuted her first original model. On 30 May, Neuro-sama was announced to be participating in OffKai Expo 2023, held from 16–18 June. In June, she was averaging 5,700 viewers and in July she had over 300,000 Twitch followers; in a June interview with Bloomberg News, Vedal said that running Neuro-sama was his full-time job. By November, Neuro-sama had maintained her popularity and was averaging approximately 5,000 viewers; this was unlike most other types of AI-based entertainment which debuted at around the same time and garnered popularity before turning out to be "overhyped flops". On 16 December, Vedal won the Best Tech VTuber award at the 2023 VTuber Awards. On 19 December, Vedal began a subathon to coincide with Neuro-sama's first anniversary of streaming on Twitch (her "birthday"). The subathon ended on 4 January 2024. On 20 July 2024, Neuro-sama began streaming with Japanese subtitles on

    Read more →
  • Mars Plus

    Mars Plus

    Mars Plus is a 1994 science fiction novel by American writer Frederik Pohl and Thomas T. Thomas. It is the sequel to Pohl's 1976 novel Man Plus, which is about a cyborg, Roger Torraway, who is designed to operate in the harsh Martian environment, so that humans can start to colonize Mars. Mars Plus is set fifty years after the first novel. Young Demeter Coghlan travels to Mars, now settled by humans and cyborgs, and finds herself amidst a rebellion by the colonists. == Plot == In Man Plus, set in the not-too-distant future, with threat of the Cold War becoming a fighting war, people plan for the colonization of Mars to escape the seemingly-inevitable Armageddon. The American government begins a cyborg program to create a being capable of surviving the harsh Martian environment: a "Man Plus" called Roger Torraway who is converted from man to cyborg. While his cyborg body is adapted to Mars, he feels strange at first. As more nations develop cyborgs, the computer networks of Earth become sentient. Mars Plus is set fifty years after the first novel, when Mars is settled by humans and cyborgs. The cyborg Torroway is in the novel, but he is not the main character. The protagonist is Demeter Coghlan, a young woman from Earth who travels to Mars. Demeter is seeking information about a canyon that she believes may be significant if the colonists begin to convert Mars to an Earth-like planet. Amidst a backdrop of spies and newly dispatched Earth diplomats, the inexperienced Demeter senses that tensions are rising on the planet. She is further disoriented due to recovering from an accident. Despite the risks in the region, Demeter has intense sexual encounters with some of the local colonists. When the locals rebel against the surveillance set up by the computer network, Demeter is kidnapped by the computer network. == Reception == The reviewer from SFBook Reviews criticizes the book, saying "nothing really happens" and stating that there is no linkage to Man Plus apart from the presence of the cyborg Torraway; moreover, the reviewer states that the questions posed in the first novel are not answered. SF Reviews calls Mars Plus "...not as good as Man Plus but...not bad", and it is praised for "...some nice touches: Demeter continuously forgetting to think about geology; her careless dictation to the computer and her irresistible urges for wild sex." SF Reviews criticizes the writing in Mars Plus for being "...a little careless in places" and in need of more "...more crafting and pruning."

    Read more →
  • Dartmouth workshop

    Dartmouth workshop

    The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence was a 1956 summer workshop widely considered to be the founding event of artificial intelligence as a field. The workshop has been referred to as "the Constitutional Convention of AI". The project's four organizers, Claude Shannon, John McCarthy, Nathaniel Rochester and Marvin Minsky, are considered some of the "founding fathers" of AI. However it was not the first conference devoted to what would now be described as the question of artificial intelligence: it postdated meetings such as the 1951 Paris cybernetics conference and the Macy meetings. The project lasted approximately six to eight weeks and consisted largely of brainstorming sessions. Eleven mathematicians and scientists originally planned to attend; not all of them attended, but more than ten others came for short times. == Background == In the early 1950s, there were various names for the field of "thinking machines": cybernetics, automata theory, and complex information processing. The variety of names suggests the variety of conceptual orientations. In 1955, John McCarthy, then a young Assistant Professor of Mathematics at Dartmouth College, decided to organize a group to clarify and develop ideas about thinking machines. He picked the name 'Artificial Intelligence' for the new field. He chose the name partly for its neutrality; avoiding a focus on narrow automata theory, and avoiding cybernetics which was heavily focused on analog feedback, as well as him potentially having to accept the assertive Norbert Wiener as guru or having to argue with him. In early 1955, McCarthy approached the Rockefeller Foundation to request funding for a summer seminar at Dartmouth for about 10 participants. In June, he and Claude Shannon, a founder of information theory then at Bell Labs, met with Robert Morison, Director of Biological and Medical Research to discuss the idea and possible funding, though Morison was unsure whether money would be made available for such a visionary project. On September 2, 1955, the project was formally proposed by McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Nathaniel Rochester and Claude Shannon. The proposal is credited with introducing the term 'artificial intelligence'. The Proposal states: We propose that a 2-month, 10-man study of artificial intelligence be carried out during the summer of 1956 at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. The study is to proceed on the basis of the conjecture that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it. An attempt will be made to find how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves. We think that a significant advance can be made in one or more of these problems if a carefully selected group of scientists work on it together for a summer. The proposal goes on to discuss computers, natural language processing, neural networks, theory of computation, abstraction and creativity (these areas within the field of artificial intelligence are considered still relevant to the work of the field). On May 26, 1956, McCarthy notified Robert Morison of the planned 11 attendees: For the full period: 1) Dr. Marvin Minsky 2) Dr. Julian Bigelow 3) Professor D.M. Mackay 4) Mr. Ray Solomonoff 5) Mr. John Holland 6) Dr. John McCarthy For four weeks: 7) Dr. Claude Shannon 8) Mr. Nathaniel Rochester 9) Mr. Oliver Selfridge For the first two weeks: 10) Dr. Allen Newell 11) Professor Herbert Simon He noted, "we will concentrate on a problem of devising a way of programming a calculator to form concepts and to form generalizations. This of course is subject to change when the group gets together." The actual participants came at different times, mostly for much shorter times. Trenchard More replaced Rochester for three weeks and MacKay and Holland did not attend—but the project was set to begin. Around June 18, 1956, the earliest participants (perhaps only Ray Solomonoff, maybe with Tom Etter) arrived at the Dartmouth campus in Hanover, N.H., to join John McCarthy who already had an apartment there. Solomonoff and Minsky stayed at Professors' apartments, but most would stay at the Hanover Inn. == Dates == The Dartmouth Workshop is usually said to have run for six weeks. Ray Solomonoff's notes taken during the workshop, however, indicate that it ran for roughly eight weeks, from about June 18 to August 17. Solomonoff's notes start on June 22; June 28 mentions Minsky, June 30 mentions Hanover, N.H., July 1 mentions Tom Etter. On August 17, Solomonoff gave a final talk. == Participants == Initially, McCarthy lost his list of attendees. Instead, after the workshop, McCarthy sent Solomonoff a preliminary list of participants and visitors plus those interested in the subject. 47 people were listed. Solomonoff, however, made a list of participants in his notes of the summer project: Ray Solomonoff Marvin Minsky John McCarthy Claude Shannon Trenchard More Nat Rochester Oliver Selfridge Julian Bigelow W. Ross Ashby W.S. McCulloch Abraham Robinson Tom Etter John Nash David Sayre Arthur Samuel Kenneth R. Shoulders Shoulders' friend Alex Bernstein Herbert Simon Allen Newell Shannon attended Solomonoff's talk on July 10 and Bigelow gave a talk on August 15. Solomonoff doesn't mention Bernard Widrow, but in 1994 Widrow said that he and an unidentified colleague from the same lab in MIT had attended for one week. In the same interview Widrow recalled that "I think [Wesley] Clark and [Belmont] Farley were there from Lincoln Lab." Trenchard mentions R. Culver and Solomonoff mentions Bill Shutz. Herb Gelernter didn't attend, but was influenced later by what Rochester learned. In an article in IEEE Spectrum, Grace Solomonoff additionally identifies Peter Milner in a photo taken by Nathaniel Rochester in front of Dartmouth Hall. Ray Solomonoff, Marvin Minsky, and John McCarthy were the only three who stayed for the full time. Trenchard took attendance during two weeks of his three-week visit. From three to about eight people would attend the daily sessions. == Event and aftermath == They had the entire top floor of the Dartmouth Math Department to themselves, and most weekdays they would meet at the main math classroom where someone might lead a discussion focusing on his ideas, or more frequently, a general discussion would be held. It was not a directed group research project; discussions covered many topics, but several directions are considered to have been initiated or encouraged by the Workshop: the rise of symbolic methods, systems focused on limited domains (early expert systems), and deductive systems versus inductive systems. One participant, Arthur Samuel, said, "It was very interesting, very stimulating, very exciting". Ray Solomonoff kept notes giving his impression of the talks and the ideas from various discussions. === McCarthy's 1956 AI distribution list === This is the list in the "People Interested in the Artificial Intelligence Problem" document which McCarthy produced in 1956, partly in lieu of a list of attendees at the Dartmouth workshop. According to McCarthy the list was "being sent to the people on the list and a few others", and its purpose was "to let those on it know who is interested in receiving documents on the problem" of artificial intelligence. McCarthy also promised to deliver them a report on the Dartmouth conference, and to send an updated list soon afterwards. It includes people who did not attend the conference and does not include everyone who did attend it.

    Read more →
  • CogX Festival

    CogX Festival

    CogX Festival is a global festival focusing on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) and emerging technology on industry, government, and society. It takes place annually, usually in September, in London, England. Founded by Charlie Muirhead and Tabitha Goldstaub in 2017, CogX aims to facilitate dialogue and understanding about AI and its implications across various sectors. CogX Festival 2023 was held from September 12 to September 14 across multiple sites in London. == History == The inaugural CogX event took place in 2017, intending to bring together experts from diverse fields to discuss the role and impact of AI and emerging technologies. Since then, it has evolved to include a broader range of topics and attract a diverse audience. In 2018, the first CogX Awards festival was hosted. That year, over 50 awards were shown to 300 guests. In 2021, CogX and Hopin, a video conferencing software, signed an agreement lasting 4 years to make CogX a hybrid conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic. CogX 2021 attracted over 5,000 attendees in-person and over 100,000 virtually. In 2022, they returned to a live event format after two years of hybrid events and controlled physical attendance. They also launched the CogX app, which curated insights from the world's top podcasts. In 2023, after he had delivered the keynote address guest speaker Stephen Fry fell off the stage and subsequently broke his leg, hip, pelvis and a "bunch of ribs". A court filing in 2026 revealed that Fry was seeking £100,000 in damages from CogX Festival Ltd and creative agency Blonstein Events. == Programming == The festival features sessions, discussions, workshops, and exhibitions, encompassing various domains of AI and technology. In recent CogX Festivals, they have featured summits encompassing topics like global leadership and industry transformation.

    Read more →
  • Personoid

    Personoid

    Personoid is the concept coined by Stanisław Lem, a Polish science-fiction writer, in Non Serviam, from his book A Perfect Vacuum (1971). His personoids are an abstraction of functions of human mind and they live in computers; they do not need any human-like physical body. In cognitive and software modeling, personoid is a research approach to the development of intelligent autonomous agents. In frame of the IPK (Information, Preferences, Knowledge) architecture, it is a framework of abstract intelligent agent with a cognitive and structural intelligence. It can be seen as an essence of high intelligent entities. From the philosophical and systemics perspectives, personoid societies can also be seen as the carriers of a culture. According to N. Gessler, the personoids study can be a base for the research on artificial culture and culture evolution. == Personoids on TV and cinema == Welt am Draht (1973) The Thirteenth Floor (1999)

    Read more →
  • Federation of International Robot-soccer Association

    Federation of International Robot-soccer Association

    The Federation of International Robot-soccer Association (FIRA) is an international organisation organising competitive soccer competitions between autonomous robots. The matches are usually five-a-side. == History == In 1996 and 1997, this competition was known as MiroSot and was held in Daejeon, Korea. The 1996 competition offered a challenging arena to the younger generation and researchers working with autonomous mobile robotic systems. From 1998 through 2008, it was called the FIRA Cup, and in 2009, it became the FIRA RoboWorld Cup & Congress. The 15th RoboWorld Cup was held at Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Bangalore, India in September 2010. In 2013, it took place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The championship started on August 24, 2013, and ended on August 29. At that time, it involved five categories: Micro-Robot Soccer Tournament, Amire, Naro, Simulated Robot, Android, Robo and Humanoid Robot. It attracted teams from Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, India, China, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Canada, Russia and Malaysia. 80 teams from 11 countries participated. In 2018, the competition had 277 teams participating from 12 countries. === Past Events === == FIRA RoboWorld Cup & Congress == This competition has 4 leagues: FIRA AIR, FIRA Sports, FIRA Challenges, and FIRA Youth. Each league has its own competitions, and each competition can have several events. === FIRA AIR === The FIRA AIR league has two associated competitions, Autonomous Race and Emergency Service. === FIRA Sports === The FIRA Sports league has four associated competitions, HuroCup, RoboSot, SimuroSot, and AndroSot. This the robot soccer league. HuroCup consists of single events for bipedal humanoid robots. The events are: archery, sprint, marathon, united soccer, obstacle run, long jump, spartan race, marathon, weightlifting, and basketball. There is an all-round competition for the single robot that performs the best overall. === FIRA Challenges === The FIRA Challenges league has three associated competitions, Autonomous Cars, Autonomous Cars Simulation, Innovation and Business. === FIRA Youth === The FIRA Youth league has six associated challenges, Sport Robots, HuroCup Junior, CityRacer, DRV_Explorer, Cliff Hanger, and Mission Impossible.

    Read more →
  • Oasis (Minecraft clone)

    Oasis (Minecraft clone)

    Oasis is a 2024 video game that attempts to replicate the 2011 sandbox game Minecraft, run entirely using generative artificial intelligence. The project, which began development in 2022 between the AI company Decart and the computer hardware startup Etched, was released by Decart to the public on October 31, 2024. The AI-driven simulation uses "next-frame prediction" to anticipate player actions based on keyboard and mouse inputs, trained on millions of hours of gameplay footage. Without memory or code, the game often outputs unpredictable changes in scenery and inventory, limiting its functionality as a traditional video game. Critics noted its lack of sound, low frame rate, and "dream-like" appearance, though some praised its unpredictability as entertaining. The project is seen as a potential proof of concept for AI-driven video games. == Creation and gameplay == The demo "proof of concept" version of the game was developed by Israeli San Francisco–based AI company Decart and Silicon Valley hardware startup Etched. The idea originated in 2022 when Robert Wachen, a Harvard graduate and co-founder of Etched, met Dean Leitersdorf, an Israel Institute of Technology graduate and co-founder of Decart. Sharing an interest in OpenAI's GPT-3, they collaborated to create the game, naming it after the setting of the novel and film Ready Player One. It was funded by a $21 million grant from Israeli-American billionaire Oren Zeev and New York–based Sequoia Capital. Decart released the game to the public for free on October 31, 2024. The AI replicates Minecraft's gameplay without code using "next-frame prediction", in which the AI tries to predict what the player will see after each keyboard and mouse input, which it was trained to do on millions of hours of Minecraft footage. The game used Nvidia graphics processing units or GPUs for its demo but plans to transition to more energy-efficient Sohu GPUs, under development by Etched, capable of supporting up to 4K graphics. Etched has also suggested the possibility of making the game open source in the future. Alongside Oasis, the company is co-developing AI-generated video and educational content. == Reception == Upon its launch, many players posted videos of their experience with the game online, which often showed Oasis could not maintain coherent logic in its actions or setting. The game also presented low-quality graphics, running between 360p and 720p consistently at 20 FPS, no in-game sound, and could only be played for five minutes at a time before restarting. These issues led some news outlets to refer to the game as a "nightmarish hallucination", and drawing comparisons to dementia and dreams. Despite the negative reviews, Leitersdorf, as well as a number of commentators, have commented that while the game may have fallen short of replicating Minecraft in its demo launch, it was the first step towards something more advanced, which could one day resemble Minecraft or any other game. Online publication The Backdash commented the game could be a "glimpse at the future of game development", while others like Tom's Hardware expressed doubts a game without code could ever look as good as one with, arguing they fail to capture "the point of what makes games fun—or even coherent". In terms of legality, Decart and Etched did not receive permission from Microsoft to create a copy of their game using generative artificial intelligence. No legal actions have been taken by the latter, however, as artificial intelligence and copyright remains largely vague legally.

    Read more →
  • Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge

    Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge

    The Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge (MAGIC) is a 1.6 million dollar prize competition for autonomous mobile robots funded by TARDEC and the DSTO, the primary research organizations for Tank and Defense research in the United States and Australia respectively. The goal of the competition is to create multi-vehicle robotic teams that can execute an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission in a dynamic urban environment. The challenge required competitors to map a 500 m x 500 m challenge area in under 3.5 hours and to correctly locate, classify and recognise all simulated threats. The challenge event was conducted in Adelaide, Australia, during November 2010. == Competitors == Initially 12 teams were selected for the competition in November 2009, of which 10 teams received funding. These included: MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia (UWA, ECU, Flinders, Thales) Strategic Engineering – Adelaide, Australia (U. Adelaide) Northern Hunters – Canada (Royal Military College of Canada) Chiba Team – Japan (Chiba University) Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey (ASELSAN, Ohio State University) RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. (Robotics Research, LLC; QinetiQ; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) Team Cornell – US (Cornell University) Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. (University of Michigan) Virginia Tech – US (Virginia Tech) University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania) Numinence – Brisbane, Australia (Numinence Pty Ltd, La Trobe University) UNSW – Sydney, Australia (UNSW) The first downselection trial required teams to map an indoor area and outdoor area, and to demonstrate distributing and handing over tasks between robots. During the first downselection trial, the top six teams were selected: Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia Chiba Team – Japan Before the finals were held, Chiba Team withdrew from the competition, leaving five competitors. == Event == Ultimately the overall goal of fully autonomous operations without human intervention was not achieved, however, the Secretary for Defence stated "The competing vehicles demonstrated new advances in robotics technology, which are very promising for their potential deployment in combat zones where they can replace our troops in carrying out life-threatening tasks" and considered the competition a success. == Results == The official results of the competition were: First – Team Michigan ($750,000 prize) Second – University of Pennsylvania ($250,000 prize) Third – RASR ($100,000 prize) Fourth – MAGICian & Cappadocia The "Old Ram Shed Challenge" was a single-day competition held after the completion of MAGIC. It was smaller in scale, allowing all of the teams to demonstrate their systems during a single day. The University of Pennsylvania won this challenge, having found a greater number of the target objects than the other teams. == Technology == Key technology used by all teams was computer vision, sensor fusion, human-robot interaction, and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Team Michigan, a collaboration between the University of Michigan's APRIL Lab and Soar Technology, Inc., had the largest fleet of 14 robots, developed their own Inertial Measurement Unit, and created their skid steer robot chassis out of Baltic birch plywood. Additionally, they had minimal reliance on GPS and used bandwidth limited 900 MHz radios for all telemetry, imaging, and status communications between all robots and the ground station. The code was written primarily in Java and each robot was equipped with an actuated 2D LIDAR, along with a unique 2D barcode for inter-robot recognition. The University of Pennsylvania team consisted of only four members. All code was written using Matlab. The robots were equipped with omnidirectional vision. RASR used the Foster-Miller TALON vehicle. MAGICian used the WAMbot robots developed by The University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University and Thales Australia. Code was written in C++ and Java. The robots were equipped with SICK laser scanners. See the September/October 2012 special issue of the Journal of Field Robotics for contest highlights, technical approaches taken by several of the teams, and an explanation of the evaluation metrics used by organizers.

    Read more →
  • MetroHero

    MetroHero

    MetroHero is a semi-defunct real-time transit tracking and performance analysis application for the Washington Metro rapid transit system. Originally available on iOS, Android, and the web, it allows users to view live maps of all trains on a specific line, summary statistics relating to real-time system performance, and user feedback on current Metro conditions. The app launched in 2015, followed by ARIES for Transit, a related project from the same developers, and continued functioning until its original developers shut it down in 2023. Afterwards, forks of the application went live to allow for its continued public use, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), Metro's operator, announced that it would launch a similar app. The app has been described by local news media as popular and well-liked among Washington, D.C.-area residents. == History and main development == MetroHero was initially developed by James and Jennifer Pizzurro, who both attended George Washington University and studied computer science. They said that they were inspired to create the app after experiencing train delays and searching for an app to track a train after boarding; such an app did not exist for the Washington Metro. The development of the app was not endorsed by WMATA, but it did use publicly available data from the agency. MetroHero launched as an Android application in September 2015, followed by the release of an iOS-compatible web app in December of that year. A standalone iOS app launched in April 2018, but the web app remained supported. By April 2018, MetroHero had approximately 13,000 monthly active users. James Pizzurro has stated that the app's intended audience was regular Metro commuters who wanted to communicate with each other about active problems, as opposed to tourists and riders who only wanted train time data. Throughout the application's development, the Pizzurros had been advocates for Metro's transparency with riders and the community by providing more high-quality data and taking on the feedback of developers. In particular, they criticized Metro's reluctance to uniquely identify individual train trips and its decision to obscure data under certain circumstances, which have posed problems for MetroHero's data collection. In addition to their work on MetroHero, the app's developers led or participated in other initiatives related to transit in the Greater Washington area. In 2019, MetroHero partnered with a local transit group to analyze Metrobus data and publish a "Metrobus Report Card", along with proposed goals and recommendations based on the report's findings. Based on this experience, MetroHero's developers began a sister project, the Adherence + Reliability + Integrity Evaluation System for Transit (ARIES for Transit), which displays data and issues grades for Washington- and Baltimore-area transit systems. Separately, James Pizzurro used MetroHero data to inform Rail Transit OPS, an independent Metro oversight group, and assist in its documentation of Metro system incidents. == Application == The MetroHero application uses several interfaces, including an overall dashboard and a live map, to display data to its users. On the dashboard, system-wide train summary data, such as the number of operating trains and headway adherence, is visible. The map offers a visual representation of all trains' positions throughout the system, filtered by line. Individual stations and trains can be selected to see ratings and comments provided by other users, including both positive and negative notes like cleanliness and crowdedness. Additionally, a list of train wait times is given, along with aggregate data like average wait time. Any train delays or service incidents are visible in the app. MetroHero uses several data sources for the various components of its application. Train positions and other operational data are provided by WMATA as part of its initiative to release open data for third-party developers. However, MetroHero's developers noted that the Metro-provided information is sometimes inaccurate and incomplete, thereby limiting the accuracy of MetroHero. The app also collects crowdsourced data from its users, who can report conditions in train cars and stations and add to reports sent by other people. Additionally, MetroHero parses data from Twitter feeds to learn about system incidents, including delays and fires. In addition to the web app, Android app, and iOS app, MetroHero's initial developers maintained automated social media accounts that alerted customers about Metro service; these accounts were discontinued upon the original app's eventual shutdown. MetroHero also hosts archived performance data for later review, a feature that is sometimes used after major incidents. == Shutdown and future == In February 2023, James Pizzurro announced that MetroHero would be shut down on July 1, 2023, citing "positive changes ... in the app landscape and in WMATA's data management and communication" and the costs and time associated with maintaining the app. Shortly before the application's end date, the Pizzurros shared MetroHero's source code on GitHub, which prompted others to fork the code and begin maintaining new instances of MetroHero to succeed the original app. The original website went offline on July 1, as planned. Historically, WMATA has not offered its own real-time map or similar service, citing other apps from third parties which accomplished the same task. However, on June 30, 2023, Randy Clarke, WMATA's general manager, announced that Metro would begin offering a similar service as MetroHero did. The app, initially named MetroMeter, was planned to begin operating in early July and would provide real-time information on trains, headways, and service schedules. Metro also noted its intentions to extend this service to Metrobus and MetroAccess. On July 20, Metro announced that the app had been renamed to MetroPulse and launched it in beta. MetroHero's other project, ARIES for Transit, was not affected by the shutdown. == Reception == MetroHero was generally well-received and has been recognized for its usage among Washington-area commuters. DCist called it one of the "most praised" Metro tracking apps, and WMATA publicly acknowledged its popularity when announcing its decision to establish MetroPulse. Chris Barnes, a member of the Metro Riders' Advisory Council, said that the app is considered important among riders because it fulfills a need for riders to have reliable and transparent transit information, albeit somewhat hindered by flaws in WMATA's data.

    Read more →
  • Vague set

    Vague set

    In mathematics, vague sets are an extension of fuzzy sets. In a fuzzy set, each object is assigned a single value in the interval [0,1] reflecting its grade of membership. This single value does not allow a separation of evidence for membership and evidence against membership. Gau et al. proposed the notion of vague sets, where each object is characterized by two different membership functions: a true membership function and a false membership function. This kind of reasoning is also called interval membership, as opposed to point membership in the context of fuzzy sets. == Mathematical definition == A vague set V {\displaystyle V} is characterized by its true membership function t v ( x ) {\displaystyle t_{v}(x)} its false membership function f v ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{v}(x)} with 0 ≤ t v ( x ) + f v ( x ) ≤ 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq t_{v}(x)+f_{v}(x)\leq 1} The grade of membership for x is not a crisp value anymore, but can be located in [ t v ( x ) , 1 − f v ( x ) ] {\displaystyle [t_{v}(x),1-f_{v}(x)]} . This interval can be interpreted as an extension to the fuzzy membership function. The vague set degenerates to a fuzzy set, if 1 − f v ( x ) = t v ( x ) {\displaystyle 1-f_{v}(x)=t_{v}(x)} for all x. The uncertainty of x is the difference between the upper and lower bounds of the membership interval; it can be computed as ( 1 − f v ( x ) ) − t v ( x ) {\displaystyle (1-f_{v}(x))-t_{v}(x)} .

    Read more →
  • Algorithmic accountability

    Algorithmic accountability

    Algorithmic accountability refers to the allocation of responsibility for the consequences of real-world actions influenced by algorithms used in decision-making processes. Ideally, algorithms should be designed to eliminate bias from their decision-making outcomes. This means they ought to evaluate only relevant characteristics of the input data, avoiding distinctions based on attributes that are generally inappropriate in social contexts, such as an individual's ethnicity in legal judgments. However, adherence to this principle is not always guaranteed, and there are instances where individuals may be adversely affected by algorithmic decisions. Responsibility for any harm resulting from a machine's decision may lie with the algorithm itself or with the individuals who designed it, particularly if the decision resulted from bias or flawed data analysis inherent in the algorithm's design. == Algorithm usage == Algorithms are widely utilized across various sectors of society that incorporate computational techniques in their control systems. These applications span numerous industries, including but not limited to medical, transportation, and payment services. In these contexts, algorithms perform functions such as: Approving or denying credit card applications; Approving or denying immigrant visas; Determining which taxpayers will be audited on their income taxes; Managing systems that control self-driving cars on a highway; Scoring individuals as potential criminals for use in legal proceedings; Search engines that match and rank database and internet search results; Recommendation systems that filter which news, entertainment, or purchase items are featured in a feed; Market-making algorithms that match sellers and buyers, such as in transportation (ride-hailing) or financial platforms. However, the implementation of these algorithms can be complex and opaque. Generally, algorithms function as "black boxes," meaning that the specific processes an input undergoes during execution are often not transparent, with users typically only seeing the resulting output. This lack of transparency raises concerns about potential biases within the algorithms, as the parameters influencing decision-making may not be well understood. The outputs generated can lead to perceptions of bias, especially if individuals in similar circumstances receive different results. According to Nicholas Diakopoulos: But these algorithms can make mistakes. They have biases. Yet they sit in opaque black boxes, their inner workings, their inner “thoughts” hidden behind layers of complexity. We need to get inside that black box, to understand how they may be exerting power on us, and to understand where they might be making unjust mistakes == Wisconsin Supreme Court case == Algorithms are prevalent across various fields and significantly influence decisions that affect the population at large. Their underlying structures and parameters often remain unknown to those impacted by their outcomes. A notable case illustrating this issue is a recent ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court concerning "risk assessment" algorithms used in criminal justice. The court determined that scores generated by such algorithms, which analyze multiple parameters from individuals, should not be used as a determining factor for arresting an accused individual. Furthermore, the court mandated that all reports submitted to judges must include information regarding the accuracy of the algorithm used to compute these scores. This ruling is regarded as a noteworthy development in how society should manage software that makes consequential decisions, highlighting the importance of reliability, particularly in complex settings like the legal system. The use of algorithms in these contexts necessitates a high degree of impartiality in processing input data. However, experts note that there is still considerable work to be done to ensure the accuracy of algorithmic results. Questions about the transparency of data processing continue to arise, which raises issues regarding the appropriateness of the algorithms and the intentions of their designers. == Controversies == A notable instance of potential algorithmic bias is highlighted in an article by The Washington Post regarding the ride-hailing service Uber. An analysis of collected data revealed that estimated waiting times for users varied based on the neighborhoods in which they resided. Key factors influencing these discrepancies included the predominant ethnicity and average income of the area. Specifically, neighborhoods with a majority white population and higher economic status tended to have shorter waiting times, while those with more diverse ethnic compositions and lower average incomes experienced longer waits. It’s important to clarify that this observation reflects a correlation identified in the data, rather than a definitive cause-and-effect relationship. No value judgments are made regarding the behavior of the Uber app in these cases. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: Concern about “black box” algorithms that govern our lives has been spreading. New York University’s Information Law Institute hosted a conference on algorithmic accountability, noting: “Scholars, stakeholders, and policymakers question the adequacy of existing mechanisms governing algorithmic decision-making and grapple with new challenges presented by the rise of algorithmic power in terms of transparency, fairness, and equal treatment.” Yale Law School’s Information Society Project is studying this, too. “Algorithmic modeling may be biased or limited, and the uses of algorithms are still opaque in many critical sectors,” the group concluded. == Possible solutions == Discussions among experts have sought viable solutions to understand the operations of algorithms, often referred to as "black boxes." It is generally proposed that companies responsible for developing and implementing these algorithms should ensure their reliability by disclosing the internal processes of their systems. Hemant Taneja, writing for TechCrunch, emphasizes that major technology companies, such as Google, Amazon, and Uber, must actively incorporate algorithmic accountability into their operations. He suggests that these companies should transparently monitor their own systems to avoid stringent regulatory measures. One potential approach is the introduction of regulations in the tech sector to enforce oversight of algorithmic processes. However, such regulations could significantly impact software developers and the industry as a whole. It may be more beneficial for companies to voluntarily disclose the details of their algorithms and decision-making parameters, which could enhance the trustworthiness of their solutions. Another avenue discussed is the possibility of self-regulation by the companies that create these algorithms, allowing them to take proactive steps in ensuring accountability and transparency in their operations. In TechCrunch website, Hemant Taneja wrote: There’s another benefit — perhaps a huge one — to software-defined regulation. It will also show us a path to a more efficient government. The world’s legal logic and regulations can be coded into software and smart sensors can offer real-time monitoring of everything from air and water quality, traffic flows and queues at the DMV. Regulators define the rules, technologist create the software to implement them and then AI and ML help refine iterations of policies going forward. This should lead to much more efficient, effective governments at the local, national and global levels.

    Read more →