AI For Business Mit

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

Comparison of color models in computer graphics

This article provides introductory information about the RGB, HSV, and HSL color models from a computer graphics (web pages, images) perspective. An introduction to colors is also provided to support the main discussion. == Basics of color == === Primary colors and hue === First, "color" refers to the human brain's subjective interpretation of combinations of a narrow band of wavelengths of light. For this reason, the definition of "color" is not based on a strict set of physical phenomena. Therefore, even basic concepts like "primary colors" are not clearly defined. For example, traditional "Painter's Colors" use red, blue, and yellow as the primary colors, "Printer's Colors" use cyan, yellow, and magenta, and "Light Colors" use red, green, and blue. "Light colors", more formally known as additive colors, are formed by combining red, green, and blue light. This article refers to additive colors and refers to red, green, and blue as the primary colors. Hue is a term describing a pure color, that is, a color not modified by tinting or shading (see below). In additive colors, hues are formed by combining two primary colors. When two primary colors are combined in equal intensities, the result is a "secondary color". === Color wheel === A color wheel is a tool that provides a visual representation of the relationships between all possible hues. The primary colors are arranged around a circle at equal (120 degree) intervals. (Warning: Color wheels frequently depict "Painter's Colors" primary colors, which leads to a different set of hues than additive colors.) The illustration shows a simple color wheel based on the additive colors. Note that the position (top, right) of the starting color, typically red, is arbitrary, as is the order of green and blue (clockwise, counter-clockwise). The illustration also shows the secondary colors, yellow, cyan, and magenta, located halfway between (60 degrees) the primary colors. == Complementary color == The complement of a hue is the hue that is opposite it (180 degrees) on the color wheel. Using additive colors, mixing a hue and its complement in equal amounts produces white. === Tints and shades === The following discussion uses an illustration involving three projectors pointing to the same spot on a screen. Each projector is capable of generating one hue. The "intensities" of each projector are "matched" and can be equally adjusted from zero to full. (Note: "Intensity" is used here in the same sense as the RGB color model. The subject of matching, or "gamma correction", is beyond the level of this article.) A shade is produced by "dimming" a maximum chroma color. Painters refer to this as "adding black". In our illustration, one projector is set to full intensity, a second is set to some intensity between zero and full, and third is set to zero. "Dimming" is accomplished by decreasing each projector's intensity setting to the same fraction of its start setting. In the shade example, with any fully shaded hue, that all three projectors are set to zero intensity, resulting in black. A tint is produced by "lightening" a maximum chroma color. Painters refer to this as "adding white". In our illustration, one projector is set to full intensity, a second is set to some intensity between zero and full, and third is set to zero. "Lightening" is accomplished by increasing each projector's intensity setting by the same fraction from its start setting to full. In the tinting example, note that the third projector is now contributing. When the hue is fully lightened, all three projectors are each at full intensity, and the result is white. Note an attribute of the total intensity in the additive model. If full intensity for one projector is 1, then a primary color has a combined intensity of 1. A secondary color has a total intensity of 2. White has a total intensity of 3. Tinting, or "adding white", increases the total intensity of the hue. While this is simply a fact, the HSL model will take this fact into account in its design. === Tones === Tone is a general term, typically used by painters, to refer to the effects of reducing the "colorfulness" of a maximum chroma color; painters refer to it as "adding gray". Note that gray is not a color or even a single concept but refers to all the range of values between black and white where all three primary colors are equally represented. The general term is provided as more specific terms have conflicting definitions in different color models. Thus, shading takes a hue toward black, tinting takes a hue towards white, and tones cover the range between. == Choosing a color model == No one color model is necessarily "better" than another. Typically, the choice of a color model is dictated by external factors, such as a graphics tool or the need to specify colors according to the CSS2 or CSS3 standard. The following discussion only describes how the models function, centered on the concepts of hue, shade, tint, and tone. === RGB === The RGB model's approach to colors is important because: It directly reflects the physical properties of "Truecolor" displays As of 2011, most graphic cards define pixel values in terms of the colors red, green, and blue. The typical range of intensity values for each color, 0–255, is based on taking a binary number with 32 bits and breaking it up into four bytes of 8 bits each. 8 bits can hold a value from 0 to 255. The fourth byte is used to specify the "alpha", or the opacity, of the color. Opacity comes into play when layers with different colors are stacked. If the color in the top layer is less than fully opaque (alpha < 255), the color from underlying layers "shows through". In the RGB model, hues are represented by specifying one color as full intensity (255), a second color with a variable intensity, and the third color with no intensity (0). The following provides some examples using red as the full-intensity and green as the partial-intensity colors; blue is always zero: Shades are created by multiplying the intensity of each primary color by 1 minus the shade factor, in the range 0 to 1. A shade factor of 0 does nothing to the hue, a shade factor of 1 produces black: new intensity = current intensity (1 – shade factor) The following provides examples using orange: Tints are created by modifying each primary color as follows: the intensity is increased so that the difference between the intensity and full intensity (255) is decreased by the tint factor, in the range 0 to 1. A tint factor of 0 does nothing, a tint factor of 1 produces white: new intensity = current intensity + (255 – current intensity) tint factor The following provides examples using orange: Tones are created by applying both a shade and a tint. The order in which the two operations are performed does not matter, with the following restriction: when a tint operation is performed on a shade, the intensity of the dominant color becomes the "full intensity"; that is, the intensity value of the dominant color must be used in place of 255. The following provides examples using orange: === HSV === The HSV, or HSB, model describes colors in terms of hue, saturation, and value (brightness). Note that the range of values for each attribute is arbitrarily defined by various tools or standards. Be sure to determine the value ranges before attempting to interpret a value. Hue corresponds directly to the concept of hue in the Color Basics section. The advantages of using hue are The angular relationship between tones around the color circle is easily identified Shades, tints, and tones can be generated easily without affecting the hue Saturation corresponds directly to the concept of tint in the Color Basics section, except that full saturation produces no tint, while zero saturation produces white, a shade of gray, or black. Value corresponds directly to the concept of intensity in the Color Basics section. Pure colors are produced by specifying a hue with full saturation and value Shades are produced by specifying a hue with full saturation and less than full value Tints are produced by specifying a hue with less than full saturation and full value Tones are produced by specifying a hue and both less than full saturation and value White is produced by specifying zero saturation and full value, regardless of hue Black is produced by specifying zero value, regardless of hue or saturation Shades of gray are produced by specifying zero saturation and between zero and full value The advantage of HSV is that each of its attributes corresponds directly to the basic color concepts, which makes it conceptually simple. The perceived disadvantage of HSV is that the saturation attribute corresponds to tinting, so desaturated colors have increasing total intensity. For this reason, the CSS3 standard plans to support RGB and HSL but not HSV. === HSL === The HSL model describes colors in terms of hue, saturation, and lightness (also called luminance). (Note: the definition of sa
Read more →
DARPA AlphaDogfight

The DARPA AlphaDogfight was a 2019–2020 DARPA program that pitted computers using F-16 flight simulators against one another. The computers were managed by eight teams of humans, who competed in a single-round elimination for the right to battle a skilled human dogfighter. Heron Systems corporation wrote a deep reinforcement learning software tool that bested the human pilot by a score of 5–0. The tournament program was managed by the Applied Physics Laboratory. The trials took place in October 2019 and January 2020 while the finals were held in August 2020. In 2024 a successor version of the program was tested with in the physical world with the X-62A.
Read more →
TRAIGA

TRAIGA, or the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, is a state law regulating the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in Texas. Sponsored by Representative Giovanni Capriglione, the Act establishes a framework governing certain uses of AI, outlines prohibited uses, and creates obligations on state government entities, among other provisions. TRAIGA was signed into law in 2025 and took effect on January 1, 2026. The law applies to AI developers and deployers that conduct business in Texas or whose systems are used by Texas residents. It prohibits the intentional development or deployment of AI systems to incite harm, violate constitutional rights, engage in unlawful discrimination, and produce child sexual abuse material or unlawful deepfakes. TRAIGA also establishes the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council and creates a regulatory sandbox program. The Texas Attorney General is charged with enforcement. It has received attention as one of the first comprehensive AI-related laws enacted by a U.S. state. Legal analysts have compared it to the European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act and the Colorado AI Act, noting its intent-based discrimination standard and narrower scope relative to those frameworks. == Background == In June 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 2060, which created an Artificial Intelligence Advisory Council within the Texas Department of Information Resources. The Council was tasked with monitoring the use of AI systems across state government. Its membership included representatives from law enforcement, academia, and the legal profession. After submitting a report to state policymakers, the Council was disbanded in December 2024. Separately, the Texas House Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies was created in 2023 to examine the political and social implications of artificial intelligence. Among its recommendations was the creation of a regulatory sandbox to allow for controlled testing of AI systems. This recommendation informed the regulatory sandbox provision included in TRAIGA. == History == In December 2024, Representative Capriglione introduced House Bill 1709, the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act. The bill sought to create a statewide framework for artificial intelligence, including transparency requirements for companies deploying AI systems, restrictions on certain uses of AI, and the creation of a regulatory sandbox. Modeled in part on the EU Artificial Intelligence Act and the Colorado AI Act, House Bill 1709 focused on "high-risk" AI systems and included provisions addressing private sector liability. House Bill 1709 did not advance during the legislative session. Industry stakeholders raised concerns that several provisions were overly burdensome. The bill informed the development of a revised proposal, House Bill 149, also titled the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act. The revised version removed requirements for private companies to notify consumers when they interact with AI systems and to conduct impact assessments, among other provisions. In April 2025, an amended version of House Bill 149 passed the Texas House of Representatives and was referred to the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce. The bill later received approval from both chambers, where the House voted on amendments adopted by the Senate. On May 31, 2025, the state legislature passed House Bill 149, one of several AI-related bills considered during the legislative session. Governor Abbott signed TRAIGA into law on June 22, 2025. During the legislative process, a proposed federal moratorium on state-level AI regulation initially raised questions about the enforceability of state AI laws, including TRAIGA. At the time of signing, Governor Abbott stated that Texas would ensure compliance with applicable federal requirements. In July 2025, the United States Senate voted to remove the proposed moratorium from federal legislation. The Act took effect on January 1, 2026. == Provisions == === Definitions and scope === TRAIGA applies to AI developers and deployers that advertise or conduct business in Texas, develop products used by Texas residents, or develop or deploy AI systems within the state. The Act also applies to Texas state and local government entities. The Act defines a developer as a person who develops an AI system and a deployer as one who deploys an AI system in Texas. Consumers are defined as Texas residents. The Act defines an artificial intelligence system as a machine-based system that "infers from the inputs the system receives how to generate outputs, including content, decisions, predictions, or recommendations, that can influence physical or virtual environments." === Government use === The Act requires government agencies to provide consumers with plain language notices before interacting with AI systems. It also prohibits government agencies from using artificial intelligence systems to assign social scores to consumers. It also restricts the use of AI systems to identify individuals using biometric data without the individual’s consent. === Prohibitions === The Act prohibits the development or deployment of artificial intelligence systems intended to cause harm, self-harm, or criminal activity. It also prohibits the development or deployment of AI systems designed to violate constitutional rights or unlawfully discriminate based on protected classes. In addition, the Act prohibits the development or deployment of AI systems that are intended to produce or distribute child sexual abuse material or unlawful deepfakes. === Enforcement === Enforcement authority under the Act rests with the Texas Attorney General. The Act does not create a private right of action. The Act requires the Texas Attorney General to create an online complaint system where consumers may submit allegations of potential violations. The Attorney General can investigate complaints received through this system and may request information relevant to the operation of an AI system, including information about training data. Before initiating an enforcement action, the Attorney General must provide a written notice to the alleged violator, who is then provided with a 60-day period to cure the alleged violation. === Penalties === If a violation is not cured, the Act authorizes civil penalties. Penalties range from $10,000 to $12,000 per curable violation and from $80,000 to $200,000 per non-curable violation. The Act also authorizes additional penalties of $2,000 to $40,000 for each day the violation continues. If the Attorney General determines that a person certified or licensed by a state agency has violated the Act and recommends enforcement, the relevant agency may impose additional administrative sanctions, including license suspension or further monetary penalties. === Safe harbor === The Act provides an affirmative defense for AI developers and deployers who identify potential violations through internal testing or auditing or who demonstrate compliance with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)'s Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework or a comparable risk management framework. The Act also affords protection to developers and deployers when a third party uses their AI systems in a way that violates the Act. === Texas Artificial Intelligence Council === The Act creates the Texas Artificial Intelligence Council to assist the state legislatures in evaluating artificial intelligence policy and oversight. The Council is charged with developing recommendations for state agencies regarding the use of AI systems and with overseeing the regulatory sandbox. TRAIGA gives the Council the ability to organize AI-related training for state entities and issue reports concerning artificial intelligence. The Council does not have binding rulemaking authority. The Council consists of seven members appointed by the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives. === Regulatory sandbox === The Act directs the Texas Department of Information Resources to create a regulatory sandbox program that allows participants to test AI systems under state supervision in a modified regulatory setting. To join the program, companies must submit applications that describe their AI systems and intended use. Approved participants may operate within the sandbox for up to 36 months. During that period, the Attorney General is restricted from initiating enforcement actions for certain categories of violations. == Reception == === Support === During legislative testimony, the Texas Public Policy Foundation stated that TRAIGA would benefit Texas businesses by reducing legal ambiguity and creating clearer compliance standards. Representatives of business groups also expressed support, stating that the Act would not impose overly burdensome regulations. The consum
Read more →
Kaggle

Kaggle is a data science competition platform and online community for data scientists and machine learning practitioners under Google LLC. Kaggle enables users to find and publish datasets, explore and build models in a web-based data science environment, work with other data scientists and machine learning engineers, and enter competitions to solve data science challenges. Kaggle has also facilitated the use of unethical and unreliable data in medical research. == History == Kaggle was founded by Anthony Goldbloom in April 2010. Jeremy Howard, one of the first Kaggle users, joined in November 2010 and served as the President and Chief Scientist. Also on the team was Nicholas Gruen serving as the founding chair. In 2011, the company raised $12.5 million and Max Levchin became the chairman. On March 8, 2017, Fei-Fei Li, Chief Scientist at Google, announced that Google was acquiring Kaggle. In June 2017, Kaggle surpassed 1 million registered users, and as of October 2023, it has over 15 million users in 194 countries. In 2022, founders Goldbloom and Hamner stepped down from their positions and D. Sculley became the CEO. In February 2023, Kaggle introduced Models, allowing users to discover and use pre-trained models through deep integrations with the rest of Kaggle’s platform. In April 2025, Kaggle partnered with Wikimedia Foundation. == Site overview == === Competitions === Many machine-learning competitions have been run on Kaggle since the company was founded. Notable competitions include gesture recognition for Microsoft Kinect, making a association football AI for Manchester City, coding a trading algorithm for Two Sigma Investments, and improving the search for the Higgs boson at CERN. The competition host prepares the data and a description of the problem; the host may choose whether it's going to be rewarded with money or be unpaid. Participants experiment with different techniques and compete against each other to produce the best models. Work is shared publicly through Kaggle Kernels to achieve a better benchmark and to inspire new ideas. Submissions can be made through Kaggle Kernels, via manual upload or using the Kaggle API. For most competitions, submissions are scored immediately (based on their predictive accuracy relative to a hidden solution file) and summarized on a live leaderboard. After the deadline passes, the competition host pays the prize money in exchange for "a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable and royalty-free license [...] to use the winning Entry", i.e. the algorithm, software and related intellectual property developed, which is "non-exclusive unless otherwise specified". Alongside its public competitions, Kaggle also offers private competitions, which are limited to Kaggle's top participants. Kaggle offers a free tool for data science teachers to run academic machine-learning competitions. Kaggle also hosts recruiting competitions in which data scientists compete for a chance to interview at leading data science companies like Facebook, Winton Capital, and Walmart. Kaggle's competitions have resulted in successful projects such as furthering HIV research, chess ratings and traffic forecasting. Geoffrey Hinton and George Dahl used deep neural networks to win a competition hosted by Merck. Vlad Mnih (one of Hinton's students) used deep neural networks to win a competition hosted by Adzuna. This resulted in the technique being taken up by others in the Kaggle community. Tianqi Chen from the University of Washington also used Kaggle to show the power of XGBoost, which has since replaced Random Forest as one of the main methods used to win Kaggle competitions. Several academic papers have been published based on findings from Kaggle competitions. A contributor to this is the live leaderboard, which encourages participants to continue innovating beyond existing best practices. The winning methods are frequently written on the Kaggle Winner's Blog. === Progression system === Kaggle has implemented a progression system to recognize and reward users based on their contributions and achievements within the platform. This system consists of five tiers: Novice, Contributor, Expert, Master, and Grandmaster. Each tier is achieved by meeting specific criteria in competitions, datasets, kernels (code-sharing), and discussions. The highest tier, Kaggle Grandmaster, is awarded to users who have ranked at the top of multiple competitions including high ranking in a solo team. As of April 2, 2025, out of 23.29 million Kaggle accounts, 2,973 have achieved Kaggle Master status and 612 have achieved Kaggle Grandmaster status. === Kaggle Notebooks === Kaggle includes a free, browser-based online integrated development environment, called Kaggle Notebooks, designed for data science and machine learning. Users can write and execute code in Python or R, import datasets, use popular libraries, and train models on CPUs, GPUs, or TPUs directly in the cloud. This environment is often used for competition submissions, tutorials, education, and exploratory data analysis. == Medical Research Problems == In December 2025, an article was published in The Transmitter titled "Exclusive: Springer Nature retracts, removes nearly 40 publications that trained neural networks on ‘bonkers’ dataset". The dataset in question was uploaded to Kaggle containing photographs of autistic and non-autistic children's faces. This dataset contained more than 2,900 images and it is unlikely that these children or their families gave consent for the photos for use in medical research or the images were ethically approved for research. The articles using the dataset in Springer Nature were retracted from the scientific literature. At least 90 other publications cite a version of the dataset. In April 2026, another two datasets were identified on Kaggle with no data provenance having been published in Nature titled: "Dozens of AI disease-prediction models were trained on dubious data". These datasets were used in 124 clinical prediction models, at least two of which have been used in hospitals in Indonesia and Spain, while one article using the dataset was referenced in a medical device patent. As of April 17, 2026, three of the articles using these datasets have been retracted from the scientific literature. In May 2026, an additional research publication using two image datasets from Kaggle is under investigation in Scientific Reports. An article in Retraction Watch "‘Comically bad’ datasets used to train clinical models for stroke and diabetes" highlighted the images included famous actors such as Sylvester Stallone as Rambo, George Clooney, Angelina Jolie and Daniel Craig as well as children. It would be unethical for the use of these child images in medical research without consent. Reverse searching images saw some of the images were not for stroke but for bell's palsy. One of the datasets is no longer available on Kaggle while the other one still remains and mentions the images may be subject to copyright. Kaggle relies on the community self-reporting metadata and provenance and mentions the stroke and diabetes dataset identified in "Evidence of unreliable data and poor data provenance in clinical prediction model research and clinical practice" does not violate their terms of service and they would have been removed if they had.
Read more →
You Only Look Once

You Only Look Once (YOLO) is a series of real-time object detection systems based on convolutional neural networks. First introduced by Joseph Redmon et al. in 2015, YOLO has undergone several iterations and improvements, becoming one of the most popular object detection frameworks. The name "You Only Look Once" refers to the fact that the algorithm requires only one forward propagation pass through the neural network to make predictions, unlike previous region proposal-based techniques like R-CNN that require thousands for a single image. == Overview == Compared to previous methods like R-CNN and OverFeat, instead of applying the model to an image at multiple locations and scales, YOLO applies a single neural network to the full image. This network divides the image into regions and predicts bounding boxes and probabilities for each region. These bounding boxes are weighted by the predicted probabilities. === OverFeat === OverFeat was an early influential model for simultaneous object classification and localization. Its architecture is as follows: Train a neural network for image classification only ("classification-trained network"). This could be one like the AlexNet. The last layer of the trained network is removed, and for every possible object class, initialize a network module at the last layer ("regression network"). The base network has its parameters frozen. The regression network is trained to predict the ( x , y ) {\displaystyle (x,y)} coordinates of two corners of the object's bounding box. During inference time, the classification-trained network is run over the same image over many different zoom levels and croppings. For each, it outputs a class label and a probability for that class label. Each output is then processed by the regression network of the corresponding class. This results in thousands of bounding boxes with class labels and probability. These boxes are merged until only one single box with a single class label remains. == Versions == There are two parts to the YOLO series. The original part contained YOLOv1, v2, and v3, all released on a website maintained by Joseph Redmon. === YOLOv1 === The original YOLO algorithm, introduced in 2015, divides the image into an S × S {\displaystyle S\times S} grid of cells. If the center of an object's bounding box falls into a grid cell, that cell is said to "contain" that object. Each grid cell predicts B bounding boxes and confidence scores for those boxes. These confidence scores reflect how confident the model is that the box contains an object and how accurate it thinks the box is that it predicts. In more detail, the network performs the same convolutional operation over each of the S 2 {\displaystyle S^{2}} patches. The output of the network on each patch is a tuple as follows: ( p 1 , … , p C , c 1 , x 1 , y 1 , w 1 , h 1 , … , c B , x B , y B , w B , h B ) {\displaystyle (p_{1},\dots ,p_{C},c_{1},x_{1},y_{1},w_{1},h_{1},\dots ,c_{B},x_{B},y_{B},w_{B},h_{B})} where p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} is the conditional probability that the cell contains an object of class i {\displaystyle i} , conditional on the cell containing at least one object. x j , y j , w j , h j {\displaystyle x_{j},y_{j},w_{j},h_{j}} are the center coordinates, width, and height of the j {\displaystyle j} -th predicted bounding box that is centered in the cell. Multiple bounding boxes are predicted to allow each prediction to specialize in one kind of bounding box. For example, slender objects might be predicted by j = 2 {\displaystyle j=2} while stout objects might be predicted by j = 1 {\displaystyle j=1} . c j {\displaystyle c_{j}} is the predicted intersection over union (IoU) of each bounding box with its corresponding ground truth. The network architecture has 24 convolutional layers followed by 2 fully connected layers. During training, for each cell, if it contains a ground truth bounding box, then only the predicted bounding boxes with the highest IoU with the ground truth bounding boxes is used for gradient descent. Concretely, let j {\displaystyle j} be that predicted bounding box, and let i {\displaystyle i} be the ground truth class label, then x j , y j , w j , h j {\displaystyle x_{j},y_{j},w_{j},h_{j}} are trained by gradient descent to approach the ground truth, p i {\displaystyle p_{i}} is trained towards 1 {\displaystyle 1} , other p i ′ {\displaystyle p_{i'}} are trained towards zero. If a cell contains no ground truth, then only c 1 , c 2 , … , c B {\displaystyle c_{1},c_{2},\dots ,c_{B}} are trained by gradient descent to approach zero. === YOLOv2 === Released in 2016, YOLOv2 (also known as YOLO9000) improved upon the original model by incorporating batch normalization, a higher resolution classifier, and using anchor boxes to predict bounding boxes. It could detect over 9000 object categories. It was also released on GitHub under the Apache 2.0 license. === YOLOv3 === YOLOv3, introduced in 2018, contained only "incremental" improvements, including the use of a more complex backbone network, multiple scales for detection, and a more sophisticated loss function. === YOLOv4 and beyond === Subsequent versions of YOLO (v4, v5, etc.) have been developed by different researchers, further improving performance and introducing new features. These versions are not officially associated with the original YOLO authors but build upon their work. As of 2026, versions up to YOLO26 have been released..
Read more →
Karen Hao

Karen Hao (born in the United States c. 1993) is an American journalist and author. Currently a freelancer for publications like The Atlantic and previously a foreign correspondent based in Hong Kong for The Wall Street Journal and senior artificial intelligence editor at the MIT Technology Review, she is best known for her coverage on AI research, technology ethics and the social impact of AI. Hao also co-produced the podcast In Machines We Trust and wrote the newsletter The Algorithm. Previously, she worked at Quartz as a tech reporter and data scientist and was an application engineer at the first startup to spin out of X Development. Hao's writing has also appeared in Mother Jones, Sierra Magazine, The New Republic, and other publications. == Early life and education == Hao is the daughter of Chinese immigrant parents, and grew up in New Jersey. She is a native speaker of both English and Mandarin Chinese. She graduated from The Lawrenceville School in 2011. She then studied at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), graduating with a B.S. in mechanical engineering and a minor in energy studies in 2015. == Career == Hao is known in the technology world for her coverage of new AI research findings and their societal and ethical impacts. Her writing has spanned research and issues regarding big tech data privacy, misinformation, deepfakes, facial recognition, and AI healthcare tools. In March 2021, Hao published a piece that uncovered previously unknown information about how attempts to combat misinformation by different teams at Facebook using machine learning were impeded and constantly at odds with Facebook's drive to grow user engagement. Upon its release, leaders at Facebook including Mike Schroepfer and Yann LeCun immediately criticized the piece through Twitter responses. AI researchers and AI ethics experts Timnit Gebru and Margaret Mitchell responded in support of Hao's writing and advocated for more change and improvement for all. Hao also co-produced the podcast In Machines We Trust, which discusses the rise of AI with people developing, researching, and using AI technologies. The podcast won the 2020 Front Page Award in investigative reporting. Hao has occasionally created data visualizations that have been featured in her work at the MIT Technology Review and elsewhere. In 2018, her "What is AI?" flowchart visualization was exhibited as an installation at the Museum of Applied Arts in Vienna. She has been an invited speaker at TEDxGateway, the United Nations Foundation, EmTech, WNPR, and many other conferences and podcasts. Her TEDx talk discussed the importance of democratizing how AI is built. In March 2022, she was hired by The Wall Street Journal to cover China technology and society, while being based in Hong Kong. She left the WSJ in 2023. In May 2025, Hao released the book Empire of AI: Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI. The book became a New York Times Bestseller and was named a Book of the Year by the Financial Times. In December 2025, after criticism from readers, Hao issued a correction to her book where she had previously overestimated the water consumption of a data center in Chile compared to the community's water consumption by factor of 1,000, due to an error in a government document. In April 2026 the book won the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism. === Selected awards and honors === 2019 Webby Award nominee for best newsletter, as a writer of The Algorithm 2021 Front Page Award in investigative reporting, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust 2021 Ambies Award nominee for best knowledge and science podcast, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust 2021 Webby Award nominee for best technology podcast, as a co-producer for In Machines We Trust 2024 American Humanist Media Award 2025 TIME100 AI, named by TIME magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in artificial intelligence 2026 New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism 2026 Whiting Award in Non-fiction
Read more →
Resource Description Framework

The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a method to describe and exchange graph data. It was originally designed as a data model for metadata by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). It provides a variety of syntax notations and formats, of which the most widely used is Turtle (Terse RDF Triple Language). RDF is a directed graph composed of triple statements. An RDF graph statement is represented by: (1) a node for the subject, (2) an arc from subject to object, representing a predicate, and (3) a node for the object. Each of these parts can be identified by a Internationalized Resource Identifier (IRI). An object can also be a literal value. This simple, flexible data model has a lot of expressive power to represent complex situations, relationships, and other things of interest, while also being appropriately abstract. RDF was adopted as a W3C recommendation in 1999. The RDF 1.0 specification was published in 2004, and the RDF 1.1 specification in 2014. SPARQL is a standard query language for RDF graphs. RDF Schema (RDFS), Web Ontology Language (OWL) and SHACL (Shapes Constraint Language) are ontology languages that are used to describe RDF data. == Overview == The RDF data model is similar to classical conceptual modeling approaches (such as entity–relationship or class diagrams). It is based on the idea of making statements about resources (in particular web resources) in expressions of the form subject–predicate–object, known as triples. The subject denotes the resource; the predicate denotes traits or aspects of the resource, and expresses a relationship between the subject and the object. For example, one way to represent the notion "The sky has the color blue" in RDF is as the triple: a subject denoting "the sky", a predicate denoting "has the color", and an object denoting "blue". Therefore, RDF uses subject instead of object (or entity) in contrast to the typical approach of an entity–attribute–value model in object-oriented design: entity (sky), attribute (color), and value (blue). RDF is an abstract model with several serialization formats (being essentially specialized file formats). In addition the particular encoding for resources or triples can vary from format to format. This mechanism for describing resources is a major component in the W3C's Semantic Web activity: an evolutionary stage of the World Wide Web in which automated software can store, exchange, and use machine-readable information distributed throughout the Web, in turn enabling users to deal with the information with greater efficiency and certainty. RDF's simple data model and ability to model disparate, abstract concepts has also led to its increasing use in knowledge management applications unrelated to Semantic Web activity. A collection of RDF statements intrinsically represents a labeled, directed multigraph. This makes an RDF data model better suited to certain kinds of knowledge representation than other relational or ontological models. As RDFS, OWL and SHACL demonstrate, one can build additional ontology languages upon RDF. == History == The initial RDF design, intended to "build a vendor-neutral and operating system- independent system of metadata", derived from the W3C's Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS), an early web content labelling system, but the project was also shaped by ideas from Dublin Core, and from the Meta Content Framework (MCF), which had been developed during 1995 to 1997 by Ramanathan V. Guha at Apple and Tim Bray at Netscape. A first public draft of RDF appeared in October 1997, issued by a W3C working group that included representatives from IBM, Microsoft, Netscape, Nokia, Reuters, SoftQuad, and the University of Michigan. In 1999, the W3C published the first recommended RDF specification, the Model and Syntax Specification ("RDF M&S"). This described RDF's data model and an XML serialization. Two persistent misunderstandings about RDF developed at this time: firstly, due to the MCF influence and the RDF "Resource Description" initialism, the idea that RDF was specifically for use in representing metadata; secondly that RDF was an XML format rather than a data model, and only the RDF/XML serialisation being XML-based. RDF saw little take-up in this period, but there was significant work done in Bristol, around ILRT at Bristol University and HP Labs, and in Boston at MIT. RSS 1.0 and FOAF became exemplar applications for RDF in this period. The recommendation of 1999 was replaced in 2004 by a set of six specifications: "The RDF Primer", "RDF Concepts and Abstract", "RDF/XML Syntax Specification (revised)", "RDF Semantics", "RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0", and "The RDF Test Cases". This series was superseded in 2014 by the following six "RDF 1.1" documents: "RDF 1.1 Primer", "RDF 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax", "RDF 1.1 XML Syntax", "RDF 1.1 Semantics", "RDF Schema 1.1", and "RDF 1.1 Test Cases". == RDF topics == === Vocabulary === The vocabulary defined by the RDF specification is as follows: ==== Classes ==== ===== rdf ===== rdf:XMLLiteral the class of XML literal values rdf:Property the class of properties rdf:Statement the class of RDF statements rdf:Alt, rdf:Bag, rdf:Seq containers of alternatives, unordered containers, and ordered containers (rdfs:Container is a super-class of the three) rdf:List the class of RDF Lists rdf:nil an instance of rdf:List representing the empty list ===== rdfs ===== rdfs:Resource the class resource, everything rdfs:Literal the class of literal values, e.g. strings and integers rdfs:Class the class of classes rdfs:Datatype the class of RDF datatypes rdfs:Container the class of RDF containers rdfs:ContainerMembershipProperty the class of container membership properties, rdf:_1, rdf:_2, ..., all of which are sub-properties of rdfs:member ==== Properties ==== ===== rdf ===== rdf:type an instance of rdf:Property used to state that a resource is an instance of a class rdf:first the first item in the subject RDF list rdf:rest the rest of the subject RDF list after rdf:first rdf:value idiomatic property used for structured values rdf:subject the subject of the RDF statement rdf:predicate the predicate of the RDF statement rdf:object the object of the RDF statement rdf:Statement, rdf:subject, rdf:predicate, rdf:object are used for reification (see below). ===== rdfs ===== rdfs:subClassOf the subject is a subclass of a class rdfs:subPropertyOf the subject is a subproperty of a property rdfs:domain a domain of the subject property rdfs:range a range of the subject property rdfs:label a human-readable name for the subject rdfs:comment a description of the subject resource rdfs:member a member of the subject resource rdfs:seeAlso further information about the subject resource rdfs:isDefinedBy the definition of the subject resource This vocabulary is used as a foundation for RDF Schema, where it is extended. === Serialization formats === Several common serialization formats are in use, including: Turtle, a compact, human-friendly format. TriG, an extension of Turtle to datasets. N-Triples, a very simple, easy-to-parse, line-based format that is not as compact as Turtle. N-Quads, a superset of N-Triples, for serializing multiple RDF graphs. JSON-LD, a JSON-based serialization. N3 or Notation3, a non-standard serialization that is very similar to Turtle, but has some additional features, such as the ability to define inference rules. RDF/XML, an XML-based syntax that was the first standard format for serializing RDF. RDF/JSON, an alternative syntax for expressing RDF triples using a simple JSON notation. RDF/XML is sometimes misleadingly called simply RDF because it was introduced among the other W3C specifications defining RDF and it was historically the first W3C standard RDF serialization format. However, it is important to distinguish the RDF/XML format from the abstract RDF model itself. Although the RDF/XML format is still in use, other RDF serializations are now preferred by many RDF users, both because they are more human-friendly, and because some RDF graphs are not representable in RDF/XML due to restrictions on the syntax of XML QNames. With a little effort, virtually any arbitrary XML may also be interpreted as RDF using GRDDL (pronounced 'griddle'), Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages. RDF triples may be stored in a type of database called a triplestore. === Resource identification === The subject of an RDF statement is either a uniform resource identifier (URI) or a blank node, both of which denote resources. Resources indicated by blank nodes are called anonymous resources. They are not directly identifiable from the RDF statement. The predicate is a URI which also indicates a resource, representing a relationship. The object is a URI, blank node or a Unicode string literal. As of RDF 1.1 resources are identified by Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs); IRIs are a generalization of URIs. In Semantic Web applications, and in re
Read more →
Defeasible logic

Defeasible logic is a non-monotonic logic proposed by Donald Nute to formalize defeasible reasoning. In defeasible logic, there are three different types of propositions: strict rules specify that a fact is always a consequence of another; defeasible rules specify that a fact is typically a consequence of another; undercutting defeaters specify exceptions to defeasible rules. A priority ordering over the defeasible rules and the defeaters can be given. During the process of deduction, the strict rules are always applied, while a defeasible rule can be applied only if no defeater of a higher priority specifies that it should not.
Read more →
Brill tagger

The Brill tagger is an inductive method for part-of-speech tagging. It was described and invented by Eric Brill in his 1993 PhD thesis. It can be summarized as an "error-driven transformation-based tagger". It is: a form of supervised learning, which aims to minimize error; and, a transformation-based process, in the sense that a tag is assigned to each word and changed using a set of predefined rules. In the transformation process, if the word is known, it first assigns the most frequent tag, or if the word is unknown, it naively assigns the tag "noun" to it. High accuracy is eventually achieved by applying these rules iteratively and changing the incorrect tags. This approach ensures that valuable information such as the morphosyntactic construction of words is employed in an automatic tagging process. == Algorithm == The algorithm starts with initialization, which is the assignment of tags based on their probability for each word (for example, "dog" is more often a noun than a verb). Then "patches" are determined via rules that correct (probable) tagging errors made in the initialization phase: Initialization: Known words (in vocabulary): assigning the most frequent tag associated to a form of the word Unknown word == Rules and processing == The input text is first tokenized, or broken into words. Typically in natural language processing, contractions such as "'s", "n't", and the like are considered separate word tokens, as are punctuation marks. A dictionary and some morphological rules then provide an initial tag for each word token. For example, a simple lookup would reveal that "dog" may be a noun or a verb (the most frequent tag is simply chosen), while an unknown word will be assigned some tag(s) based on capitalization, various prefix or suffix strings, etc. (such morphological analyses, which Brill calls Lexical Rules, may vary between implementations). After all word tokens have (provisional) tags, contextual rules apply iteratively, to correct the tags by examining small amounts of context. This is where the Brill method differs from other part of speech tagging methods such as those using Hidden Markov Models. Rules are reapplied repeatedly, until a threshold is reached, or no more rules can apply. Brill rules are of the general form: tag1 → tag2 IF Condition where the Condition tests the preceding and/or following word tokens, or their tags (the notation for such rules differs between implementations). For example, in Brill's notation: IN NN WDPREVTAG DT while would change the tag of a word from IN (preposition) to NN (common noun), if the preceding word's tag is DT (determiner) and the word itself is "while". This covers cases like "all the while" or "in a while", where "while" should be tagged as a noun rather than its more common use as a conjunction (many rules are more general). Rules should only operate if the tag being changed is also known to be permissible, for the word in question or in principle (for example, most adjectives in English can also be used as nouns). Rules of this kind can be implemented by simple Finite-state machines. See Part of speech tagging for more general information including descriptions of the Penn Treebank and other sets of tags. Typical Brill taggers use a few hundred rules, which may be developed by linguistic intuition or by machine learning on a pre-tagged corpus. == Code == Brill's code pages at Johns Hopkins University are no longer on the web. An archived version of a mirror of the Brill tagger at its latest version as it was available at Plymouth Tech can be found on Archive.org. The software uses the MIT License.
Read more →
Catholic Church and artificial intelligence

The Catholic Church views artificial intelligence as a significant technological development that must be governed by strict ethical principles rooted in human dignity and the common good. In January 2025, the Church issued the doctrinal note Antiqua et nova co-issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education. It addresses the "relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence" and offers reflections on the "anthropological and ethical challenges raised by AI". In August 2025, Time magazine included Pope Leo XIV in its 2025 list of the World’s Most Influential People in Artificial Intelligence. In May 2026, Pope Leo XIV approved the creation of a new Vatican commission on artificial intelligence. He released his first papal encyclical, titled Magnifica humanitas, on the topic later in the month.
Read more →
Ethics of artificial intelligence

The ethics of artificial intelligence covers a broad range of topics within AI that are considered to have particular ethical stakes. This includes algorithmic biases, fairness, accountability, transparency, privacy, and regulation, particularly where systems influence or automate human decision-making. It also covers various emerging or potential future challenges such as machine ethics (how to make machines that behave ethically), lethal autonomous weapon systems, arms race dynamics, AI safety and alignment, technological unemployment, AI-enabled misinformation, how to treat certain AI systems if they have a moral status (AI welfare and rights), artificial superintelligence and existential risks. Some application areas may also have particularly important ethical implications, like healthcare, education, criminal justice, or the military. == Machine ethics == Machine ethics (or machine morality) is the field of research concerned with designing Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs), robots or artificially intelligent computers that behave morally or as though moral. To account for the nature of these agents, it has been suggested to consider certain philosophical ideas, like the standard characterizations of agency, rational agency, moral agency, and artificial agency, which are related to the concept of AMAs. There are discussions on creating tests to see if an AI is capable of making ethical decisions. Alan Winfield concludes that the Turing test is flawed and the requirement for an AI to pass the test is too low. A proposed alternative test is one called the Ethical Turing Test, which would improve on the current test by having multiple judges decide if the AI's decision is ethical or unethical. Neuromorphic AI could be one way to create morally capable robots, as it aims to process information similarly to humans, nonlinearly and with millions of interconnected artificial neurons. Similarly, whole-brain emulation (scanning a brain and simulating it on digital hardware) could also in principle lead to human-like robots, thus capable of moral actions. And large language models are capable of approximating human moral judgments. Inevitably, this raises the question of the environment in which such robots would learn about the world and whose morality they would inherit – or if they end up developing human 'weaknesses' as well: selfishness, pro-survival attitudes, inconsistency, scale insensitivity, etc. In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that attempts to teach robots right from wrong will likely advance understanding of human ethics by motivating humans to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation. As one example, it has introduced normative ethicists to the controversial issue of which specific learning algorithms to use in machines. For simple decisions, Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky have argued that decision trees (such as ID3) are more transparent than neural networks and genetic algorithms, while Chris Santos-Lang argued in favor of machine learning on the grounds that the norms of any age must be allowed to change and that natural failure to fully satisfy these particular norms has been essential in making humans less vulnerable to criminal "hackers". Some researchers frame machine ethics as part of the broader AI control or value alignment problem: the difficulty of ensuring that increasingly capable systems pursue objectives that remain compatible with human values and oversight. Stuart Russell has argued that beneficial systems should be designed to (1) aim at realizing human preferences, (2) remain uncertain about what those preferences are, and (3) learn about them from human behaviour and feedback, rather than optimizing a fixed, fully specified goal. Some authors argue that apparent compliance with human values may reflect optimization for evaluation contexts rather than stable internal norms, complicating the assessment of alignment in advanced language models. == Challenges == === Algorithmic biases === AI has become increasingly inherent in facial and voice recognition systems. These systems may be vulnerable to biases and errors introduced by their human creators. Notably, the data used to train them can have biases. According to Allison Powell, associate professor at LSE and director of the Data and Society programme, data collection is never neutral and always involves storytelling. She argues that the dominant narrative is that governing with technology is inherently better, faster and cheaper, but proposes instead to make data expensive, and to use it both minimally and valuably, with the cost of its creation factored in. Friedman and Nissenbaum identify three categories of bias in computer systems: existing bias, technical bias, and emergent bias. In natural language processing, problems can arise from the text corpus—the source material the algorithm uses to learn about the relationships between different words. Large companies such as IBM, Google, etc. that provide significant funding for research and development have made efforts to research and address these biases. One potential solution is to create documentation for the data used to train AI systems. Process mining can be an important tool for organizations to achieve compliance with proposed AI regulations by identifying errors, monitoring processes, identifying potential root causes for improper execution, and other functions. However, there are also limitations to the current landscape of fairness in AI, due to the intrinsic ambiguities in the concept of discrimination, both at the philosophical and legal level. ==== Racial and gender biases ==== Bias can be introduced through historical data used to train AI systems. For instance, Amazon terminated their use of AI hiring and recruitment because the algorithm favored male candidates over female ones. This was because Amazon's system was trained with data collected over a 10-year period that included mostly male candidates. The algorithms learned the biased pattern from the historical data, and generated predictions where these types of candidates were most likely to succeed in getting the job. Therefore, the recruitment decisions made by the AI system turned out to be biased against female and minority candidates. The performance of facial recognition and computer vision models may vary based on race and gender. Facial recognition algorithms made by Microsoft, IBM and Face++ all performed significantly worse on darker-skinned women. Facial recognition was shown to be biased against those with darker skin tones. AI systems may be less accurate for black people, as was the case in the development of an AI-based pulse oximeter that overestimated blood oxygen levels in patients with darker skin, causing issues with their hypoxia treatment. In 2015, controversy erupted after a Black couple were labeled "Gorillas" by Google Photos. Oftentimes the systems are able to easily detect the faces of white people while being unable to register the faces of people who are black. This has led to the ban of police usage of AI materials or software in some U.S. states. The reason for these biases is that AI pulls information from across the internet to influence its responses in each situation. For example, if a facial recognition system was only tested on people who were white, it would make it much harder for it to interpret the facial structure and tones of other races and ethnicities. Biases often stem from the training data rather than the algorithm itself, notably when the data represents past human decisions. A 2020 study that reviewed voice recognition systems from Amazon, Apple, Google, IBM, and Microsoft found that they have higher error rates when transcribing black people's voices than white people's. Injustice in the use of AI is much harder to eliminate within healthcare systems, as oftentimes diseases and conditions can affect different races and genders differently. This can lead to confusion as the AI may be making decisions based on statistics showing that one patient is more likely to have problems due to their gender or race. This can be perceived as a bias because each patient is a different case, and AI is making decisions based on what it is programmed to group that individual into. This leads to a discussion about what should be considered a biased decision in the distribution of treatment. While it is known that there are differences in how diseases and injuries affect different genders and races, there is a discussion on whether it is fairer to incorporate this into healthcare treatments, or to examine each patient without this knowledge. In modern society there are certain tests for diseases, such as breast cancer, that are recommended to certain groups of people over others because they are more likely to contract the disease in question. If AI implements these statistics
Read more →
National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence

The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence (NSCAI) was an independent commission of the United States of America from 2018 to 2021. Its mission was to make recommendations to the President and Congress to "advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States". The commission's 15 members were nominated by the United States Congress. The NSCAI was dissolved on 1 October 2021. == History and reporting == The NSCAI began working in March 2019 and by November 2019 it had received more than 200 classified and unclassified briefings to help with the creation of its final report due in 2021.On 4 November 2019, the NSCAI shared its interim report with Congress, where it explained the 27 initial judgements to base its ongoing work. In the interim report the commission also agreed on seven principles: Global leadership in AI technology is a national security priority AI adoption is an urgent imperative for national security A shared sense of responsibility for the American peoples security must be created from government officials and private sector leaders. It needs to find local AI talent and use it to attract the world’s best minds Actions used for the protection of America’s AI leadership against foreign threats needs to follow the principles of free enterprise, free inquiry and free flow of ideas. The technical limitations of AI are universally known, however, a strong desire remains for powerful, dependable, and secure AI systems. United States used AI must follow American values including the rule of law Fundamental areas of effort for the preservation of U.S. advantages were also agreed upon in the interim report of 2019. The NSCAI released its first report of recommendations in March 2020, most of which were included in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. In July 2020, the commission published the second report to Congress. It identified 35 actions for both Executive and Legislative branches, which were focused on six fundamental areas. This report was available to the public. In January 2021, a draft of the final report was presented at a panel led by Schmidt. The report recommended the US to use AI technology for military use and development. It issued its final report in March 2021, saying that the U.S. is not sufficiently prepared to defend or compete against China in the AI era. It was broken up into two parts, the first titled “Defending America in the AI Era”, and the second “Winning the Technology Competition”. The report spoke about China’s efforts and investments into integration and that it could very well take the lead in AI in the next few years. Additional suggestions were made to concentrate on AI in everything we do and to implement it into US national security on multiple levels, as well as focus on bringing in new talent to develop AI and to introduce it to the working force on both civilian and military levels. Another recommendation of the NSCAI report was to develop and provide China and Russia with alternative models that are based on norms and democratic values. The final report also included a proposed $40 billion budget for government spending. On 14 April 2021, NSCAI executive director Ylli Bajraktari and director of Research and Analysis Justin Lynch participated in an event held by the Center for Security and Emerging Technology (CSET) to discuss the final report findings. In October 2021, NSCAI chair Eric Schmidt founded the bipartisan, non-profit Special Competitive Studies Project (SCSP) through his family led non-profit Eric & Wendy Schmidt Fund for Strategic Innovation in order to carry on the NSCAI’s efforts and expand beyond national security. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies held an event in June 2023, called “Thinking Forward After the NSCAI and CSC: A Discussion on AI and Cyber Policy”, with former members of NSCAI on the moderation panel, including Eric Schmidt and Ylli Bajraktari. == Members == Members of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence: Eric Schmidt (chair), former CEO of Google Robert Work (Vice Chair), former Deputy Secretary of Defense Mignon Clyburn, former Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission Chris Darby, CEO of In-Q-Tel Kenneth M. Ford, CEO of the Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Jose-Marie Griffiths, President of Dakota State University Eric Horvitz, Technical Fellow at Microsoft Katrina G. McFarland, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Jason Matheny, Director of the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University Gilman Louie, partner at Alsop Louie Partners William Mark, vice president at SRI International Andy Jassy, CEO of Amazon Web Services (AWS) Safra Catz, CEO of Oracle Steve Chien, Technical Fellow at Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Andrew Moore, Google/Alphabet == Recommendations == The report's recommendations include: Dramatically increasing non-defense federal spending on AI research and development, doubling every year from $2 billion in 2022, to $32 billion in 2026. That would bring it up to a level similar to spending on biomedical research A dramatic increase in undergraduate scholarship and graduate studies fellowships in AI Creation of a Digital Corps to bring skilled tech workers into government Founding of a Digital Service Academy: an accredited university providing subsidized education in exchange for a commitment to work for a time in government Include civil rights and civil liberty reports for new AI systems or major updates to existing systems Expanding allocations of employment-based green cards, and giving them to every AI PhD graduate from an accredited U.S. university Reforming the acquisition management system Department of Defense to make it faster and easier to introduce new technologies == Transparency == In December 2019, a ruling was made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that the NSCAI must also provide historical documents upon request. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed the lawsuit against the NSCAI in September 2019 after being refused information about the upcoming meetings and prepared records of the commission under FOIA and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in June 2020 that the NSCAI must comply with FACA and therefore hold open meetings and provide records to the public. The lawsuit was also filed by EPIC.
Read more →
Histogram of oriented displacements

Histogram of oriented displacements (HOD) is a 2D trajectory descriptor. The trajectory is described using a histogram of the directions between each two consecutive points. Given a trajectory T = {P1, P2, P3, ..., Pn}, where Pt is the 2D position at time t. For each pair of positions Pt and Pt+1, calculate the direction angle θ(t, t+1). Value of θ is between 0 and 360. A histogram of the quantized values of θ is created. If the histogram is of 8 bins, the first bin represents all θs between 0 and 45. The histogram accumulates the lengths of the consecutive moves. For each θ, a specific histogram bin is determined. The length of the line between Pt and Pt+1 is then added to the specific histogram bin. To show the intuition behind the descriptor, consider the action of waving hands. At the end of the action, the hand falls down. When describing this down movement, the descriptor does not care about the position from which the hand started to fall. This fall will affect the histogram with the appropriate angles and lengths, regardless of the position where the hand started to fall. HOD records for each moving point: how much it moves in each range of directions. HOD has a clear physical interpretation. It proposes that, a simple way to describe the motion of an object, is to indicate how much distance it moves in each direction. If the movement in all directions are saved accurately, the movement can be repeated from the initial position to the final destination regardless of the displacements order. However, the temporal information will be lost, as the order of movements is not stored-this is what we solve by applying the temporal pyramid, as shown in section \ref{sec:temp-pyramid}. If the angles quantization range is small, classifiers that use the descriptor will overfit. Generalization needs some slack in directions-which can be done by increasing the quantization range.
Read more →
Type–token distinction

The type–token distinction is the difference between a type of objects (analogous to a class) and the individual tokens of that type (analogous to instances). Since each type may be instantiated by multiple tokens, there are generally more tokens than types of an object. For example, the sentence "A rose is a rose is a rose" contains three word types: three word tokens of the type a, two word tokens of the type is, and three word tokens of the type rose. The distinction is important in disciplines such as logic, linguistics, metalogic, typography, and computer programming. == Overview == The type–token distinction separates types (abstract descriptive concepts) from tokens (objects that instantiate concepts). For example, in the sentence "the bicycle is becoming more popular" the word bicycle represents the abstract concept of bicycles and this abstract concept is a type, whereas in the sentence "the bicycle is in the garage", it represents a particular object and this particular object is a token. Similarly, the word type 'letter' uses only four letter types: L, E, T and R. Nevertheless, it uses both E and T twice. One can say that the word type 'letter' has six letter tokens, with two tokens each of the letter types E and T. Whenever a word type is inscribed, the number of letter tokens created equals the number of letter occurrences in the word type. Some logicians consider a word type to be the class of its tokens. Other logicians counter that the word type has a permanence and constancy not found in the class of its tokens. The type remains the same while the class of its tokens is continually gaining new members and losing old members. == Typography == In typography, the type–token distinction is used to determine the presence of a text printed by movable type: The defining criteria which a typographic print has to fulfill is that of the type identity of the various letter forms which make up the printed text. In other words: each letter form which appears in the text has to be shown as a particular instance ("token") of one and the same type which contains a reverse image of the printed letter. == Charles Sanders Peirce == The distinctions between using words as types or tokens were first made by American logician and philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce in 1906 using terminology that he established. Peirce's type–token distinction applies to words, sentences, paragraphs and so on: to anything in a universe of discourse of character-string theory, or concatenation theory. Peirce's original words are the following: A common mode of estimating the amount of matter in a ... printed book is to count the number of words. There will ordinarily be about twenty 'thes' on a page, and, of course, they count as twenty words. In another sense of the word 'word,' however, there is but one word 'the' in the English language; and it is impossible that this word should lie visibly on a page, or be heard in any voice .... Such a ... Form, I propose to term a Type. A Single ... Object ... such as this or that word on a single line of a single page of a single copy of a book, I will venture to call a Token. .... In order that a Type may be used, it has to be embodied in a Token which shall be a sign of the Type, and thereby of the object the Type signifies.
Read more →
Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence

The Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law (also called Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence or AI convention) is an international treaty on artificial intelligence. It was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe (CoE) and signed on 5 September 2024. The treaty aims to ensure that the development and use of AI technologies align with fundamental human rights, democratic values, and the rule of law, addressing risks such as misinformation, algorithmic discrimination, and threats to public institutions. More than 50 countries, including the EU member states, have endorsed the Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence. == Background == The development of the Framework Convention on AI emerged in response to growing concerns over the ethical, legal, and societal impacts of artificial intelligence. The Council of Europe, which has historically played a key role in setting human rights standards across Europe, initiated discussions on AI governance in 2020, leading to the drafting of a binding legal framework. The process of creating the Framework Convention began in 2019 with the ad hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAHAI) assessing the feasibility of the instrument. In 2022, the Committee on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) took over the process, drafting and negotiating the text of the Convention. The treaty is designed to complement existing international human rights instruments, including the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. == Structure and content == The Convention establishes fundamental principles for AI governance, including transparency, accountability, non-discrimination, and human rights protection through eight chapters and 26 articles. Adopted in 2024, this landmark treaty addresses AI governance through seven core principles and detailed implementation mechanisms. It mandates risk and impact assessments to mitigate potential harms and provides safeguards such as the right to challenge AI-driven decisions. It applies to public authorities and private entities acting on their behalf but excludes national security and defense activities. Implementation is overseen by a Conference of the Parties, ensuring compliance and international cooperation. Activities within the AI system lifecycle must adhere to seven fundamental principles, ensuring compliance with human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The treaty also establishes remedies, procedural rights and safeguards, and risk and impact management requirements to promote accountability, transparency, and responsible AI development. The treaty consists of five chapters. Chapter I contains general provisions. Chapter II states the general obligation to protect human rights and the integrity of democratic processes and respect of the rule of law. The main principles and rights are contained in Chapter III, which consists of Articles 6 to 13. Chapter IV (Articles 14 to 15) sets up the legal remedies. Chapter V states the risk and impact management framework. Chapter VI facilitates the implementation criteria of the treaty. Chapter VII sets the co-operation and oversight mechanisms. Chapter VIII contains various concluding clauses. Article 1 declares the objectives of the treaty, to ensure that activities within the lifecycle of artificial intelligence systems are fully consistent with human rights, democracy and the rule of law. == Entry into force == The treaty will enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of a period of three months after the date on which five ratification made by five countries, including three member states of the Council of Europe. == Competing approaches == While the CoE's AI Convention represents a multilateral effort to regulate AI through a human rights-based approach, alternative frameworks have also been proposed. One notable example is the Munich Draft for a Convention on AI, Data and Human Rights, an initiative led by legal scholars and policymakers in Germany. The Munich Draft advocates for stronger safeguards against AI-related risks, emphasizing stricter data protection measures, accountability for AI developers, and explicit prohibitions on high-risk AI applications, such as mass surveillance and autonomous lethal weapons. Unlike the CoE convention, which focuses on balancing innovation with regulation, the Munich Draft takes a more precautionary stance, calling for tighter controls over AI deployment in sensitive domains. Other competing international efforts include the OECD’s AI Principles, the GPAI (Global Partnership on AI), and the European Union's AI Act, each of which offers different regulatory strategies to govern AI at regional and global levels. == Signatories == Signatories include Andorra, Canada, the European Union, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Liechtenstein, the Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Switzerland, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. == Endorsement == The treaty was widely endorsed by leading AI policy experts, including Stuart J. Russell, Virginia Dignum, Emma Ruttkamp-Bloem, Pascal Pichonnaz, Maria Helen Murphy, Angella Ndaka, Hannes Werthner, Katja Langenbucher, Gry Hasselbalch, Ricardo Baeza-Yates, Kutoma Wakunuma, Gianclaudio Malgieri, Oreste Pollicino, Nagla Rizk, Giovanni Sartor, Lee Tiedrich, Ingrid Schneider, Eduardo Bertoni, Garry Kasparov, Merve Hikcok, and Marc Rotenberg. The treaty was also endorsed by notable political leaders, including Theodoros Roussopoulos, President of the Parliamentart Assembly in the Council of Europe, and Christopher Holmes, Member of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, and by the International Bar Association (IBA), and personally by Almudena Arpón de Mendívil, President of the IBA. The Center for AI and Digital Policy (CAIDP) has been carrying out a campaign to promote endorsement of the treaty by urging various countries to sign and ratify the treaty. The CAIDP further urged the countries to make a clear and firm commitment to ensure the full inclusion of the private sector under the treaty’s provisions.
Read more →