AI For College Students Free

AI For College Students Free — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Manual override

A manual override (MO) or manual analog override (MAO) is a mechanism where control is taken from an automated system and given to the user. For example, a manual override in photography refers to the ability for the human photographer to turn off the automatic aperture sizing, automatic focusing, or any other automated system on the camera. Some manual overrides can be used to veto an automated system's judgment when the system is in error. An example of this is a printer's ink level detection: in one case, a researcher found that when he overrode the system, up to 38% more pages could be printed at good quality by the printer than the automated system would have allowed. Automated systems are becoming increasingly common and integrated into everyday objects such as automobiles and domestic appliances. This development of ubiquitous computing raises general issues of policy and law about the need for manual overrides for matters of great importance such as life-threatening situations and major economic decisions. The loyalty of such autonomous devices then becomes an issue. If they follow rules installed by the manufacturer or required by law and refuse to cede control in some situations then the owners of the devices may feel disempowered, alienated and lacking true ownership. == Major incidents == China Airlines Flight 140 crashed, causing many deaths, due to a misunderstanding about the manual overrides for the autopilot. The Take-Off/Go Around system had been activated to abort a landing. It was programmed to ignore manual controls in this situation but the human pilots tried to continue the landing. The conflicting control signals from the pilots and autopilot then resulted in the aircraft stalling and crashing. The autopilot for this aircraft type was then reprogrammed so that it would never ignore a manual override.
Read more →
REEM

REEM is a prototype humanoid robot built by PAL Robotics in Spain. It is a 1.70 m high humanoid robot with 22 degrees of freedom, with a mobile base with wheels, allowing it to move at 4 km/hour. The upper part of the robot consists of a torso with a touch screen, two motorized arms, which give it a high degree of expression, and a head, which is also motorized. REEM-A and REEM-B are the first and second prototypes of humanoid robots created by PAL Robotics. REEM-B can recognize, grasp and lift objects and walk by itself, avoiding obstacles through simultaneous localization and mapping. The robot accepts voice commands and can recognize faces. == Specifications ==
Read more →
Cortica

Headquartered in Tel Aviv Cortica utilizes unsupervised learning methods to recognize and analyze digital images and video. The technology developed by the Cortica team is based on research of the function of the human brain. == Company Founding == Cortica was founded in 2007 by Igal Raichelgauz, Karina Odinaev and Yehoshua Zeevi. Together, the founders developed the company’s core technology while at Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. By combining discoveries in neuroscience with developments in computer programming, the team created technology that possesses the ability to interpret large amounts of visual data with increased accuracy. This technology, called Image2Text, is based on the founders’ work in digitally replicating cortical neural networks’ ability to identify complex patterns within massive quantities of ambiguous and noisy data. Cortica’s offerings have application in the automotive industry, media industries, as well as the smart city and medical industries. Industry experts suggest that the self-driving automotive industry alone will be worth upwards of $7 trillion while each connected car is expected to generate 4,000 GB of data per day. Beyond that, industry analysts expect the proliferation of surveillance cameras to continue leading to an expected 2,500 Petabytes of data being generated daily by new surveillance cameras. Cortica operates in these high scale industries. The company currently employs professionals from many domains including AI researchers as well as veterans of intelligence units within the Israeli Defense Forces. == Research and Technology == In 2006, Founders Raichelgauz, Odinaev, and Zeevi shared their findings with the 28th IEEE EMBS Annual International Conference in New York in a paper titled, “Natural Signal Classification by Neural Cliques and Phase-Locked Attractors”. That same year, the team also published “Cliques in Neural Ensembles as Perception Carriers" CB Insights recently identified Cortica as the number one patent holder among AI companies. Cortica is researching to develop a machine-learning driving system which can identify objects and pedestrians. Connecting to it, Elon Musk has been rumored to partner with Cortica for his electric car company, Tesla. However, Tesla denies it stating that Musk did not discuss a collaboration with artificial intelligence firm Cortica. == Funding == Cortica raised $7 million in its Series A funding round, announced in August 2012. Investors included Horizons Ventures (the investment firm of Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing), and Ynon Kreiz, the former chairman and CEO of the Endemol Group. In May 2013, it was announced that Cortica had raised $1.5 million from Russian firm Mail.ru Group. It later transpired that this was a part of Cortica's Series B funding round for $6.4 million, announced in June 2013. The round was led by Horizons Ventures, with participation from the Russian firm Mail.ru Group and other angel investors. In its fourth funding round, Cortica has raised $20 million, bringing the total investments to $38 million. According to a report from The Israeli lead Daily economic newspaper, TheMarker, the fourth round was led by a strategic Chinese investor who will probably help the company expand into the Asian market. == Media coverage == GigaOm listed Cortica as one of the top deep learning startups in a November 2013 article surveying the field, along with AlchemyAPI, Ersatz, and Semantria. Business Insider ranked Cortica as one of the coolest tech companies in Israel. CB Insights has identified Cortica as the top patent holding AI company. In 2017 several leading automotive media outlets covered the launch of Cortica's automotive business unit
Read more →
Mycin

MYCIN was an early backward chaining expert system that used black box to identify bacteria causing severe infections, such as bacteremia and meningitis, and to recommend antibiotics, with the dosage adjusted for patient's body weight — the name derived from the antibiotics themselves, as many antibiotics have the suffix "-mycin". The Mycin system was also used for the diagnosis of blood clotting diseases. MYCIN was developed over five or six years in the early 1970s at Stanford University. It was written in Lisp as the doctoral dissertation of Edward Shortliffe under the direction of Bruce G. Buchanan, Stanley N. Cohen and others. MYCIN emerged from the Stanford Heuristic Programming Project. MYCIN demonstrated the potential for expert systems in building high-performance medical reasoning programs. MYCIN is often viewed as a pioneer in the field of expert systems, even being referred to as the "grandaddy of them all-the one that launched the field" by Dr. Allen Newell. MYCIN led to the EMYCIN expert system shell ("essential MYCIN") for acquiring knowledge, reasoning with it, and explaining the results, without the specific medical knowledge. It can be described as "EMYCIN = Prolog + uncertainty + caching + questions + explanations + contexts - variables". An introduction is in Chapter 16 of Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming (PAIP). == Method == MYCIN operated using a fairly simple inference engine and a knowledge base of ~600 rules by obtaining individual inferential facts identified by experts and encoding such facts as individual production rules. No other AI program at the time contained as much domain-specific knowledge clearly separated from its inference procedures as MYCIN. It would query the physician running the program via a long series of simple yes/no or textual questions. At the end, it provided a list of possible culprit bacteria ranked from high to low based on the probability of each diagnosis, its confidence in each diagnosis' probability, the reasoning behind each diagnosis (that is, MYCIN would also list the questions and rules which led it to rank a diagnosis a particular way), and its recommended course of drug treatment. MYCIN could additionally respond to queries by physicians related to why it asked the user a certain question, how it arrived at a conclusion, and why it did not consider certain factors. The developers performed studies showing that MYCIN's performance was minimally affected by perturbations in the uncertainty metrics associated with individual rules, suggesting that the power in the system was related more to its knowledge representation and reasoning scheme than to the details of its numerical uncertainty model. Some observers felt that it should have been possible to use classical Bayesian statistics. MYCIN's developers argued that this would require either unrealistic assumptions of probabilistic independence, or require the experts to provide estimates for an unfeasibly large number of conditional probabilities. Subsequent studies later showed that the certainty factor model could indeed be interpreted in a probabilistic sense, and highlighted problems with the implied assumptions of such a model. However the modular structure of the system would prove very successful, leading to the development of graphical models such as Bayesian networks. === Context === A context in MYCIN determines what types of objects can be reasoned about. They are similar to variables in Prolog, or environment variables in operating systems. === Evidence combination === In MYCIN it was possible that two or more rules might draw conclusions about a parameter with different weights of evidence. For example, one rule may conclude that the organism in question is E. Coli with a certainty of 0.8 whilst another concludes that it is E. Coli with a certainty of 0.5 or even −0.8. In the event the certainty is less than zero the evidence is actually against the hypothesis. In order to calculate the certainty factor MYCIN combined these weights using the formula below to yield a single certainty factor: C F ( x , y ) = { X + Y − X Y if X , Y > 0 X + Y + X Y if X , Y < 0 X + Y 1 − min ( | X | , | Y | ) otherwise {\displaystyle CF(x,y)={\begin{cases}X+Y-XY&{\text{if }}X,Y>0\\X+Y+XY&{\text{if }}X,Y<0\\{\frac {X+Y}{1-\min(|X|,|Y|)}}&{\text{otherwise}}\end{cases}}} Where X and Y are the certainty factors. This formula can be applied more than once if more than two rules draw conclusions about the same parameter. It is commutative, so it does not matter in which order the weights were combined. The combination formula was designed to have the following desirable properties: −1 can be interpreted as "false", +1 as "true", and 0 as "uncertain". Combining unknown with anything leaves it unchanged. Combining true with anything (except false) gives true. Similarly for false. Combining true and false is a division-by-zero error. Combining +x and -x gives unknown. Combining two positives (except true) gives a larger positive. Similarly for negatives. Combining a positive and a negative gives something in between. === Examples === The following examples come from Chapter 16 of PAIP, which contains an implementation in Common Lisp of a modified and simplified version of MYCIN for pedagogical purposes. A rule, and an English paraphrase generated by the system: == Results == An evaluation of MYCIN was conducted at the Stanford Medical School. The first phase of the evaluation consisted of 10 test cases of diverse origin, chosen by a physician who was not acquainted with MYCIN's methods or knowledge base. These cases were presented to 7 physicians and 1 senior medical student. 10 prescriptions were compiled for each of the cases, 1 recommended by MYCIN, 1 prescribed by the treating physician at the county hospital, and 8 by the aforementioned individuals. The second phase of the evaluation consisted of eight infectious disease specialists being provided the clinical summary and set of 10 prescriptions for each of the 10 cases and tasked to provide their own recommendations for each case and assess the 10 prescriptions. MYCIN received an acceptability rating of 65%, which was comparable to the 42.5% to 62.5% rating of five faculty members. This study is often cited as showing the potential for disagreement about therapeutic decisions, even among experts, when there is no "gold standard" for correct treatment. == Practical use == MYCIN was never actually used in practice. This wasn't because of any weakness in its performance. Some observers raised ethical and legal issues related to the use of computers in medicine, regarding the responsibility of the physicians in case the system gave wrong diagnosis. However, the greatest problem, and the reason that MYCIN was not used in routine practice, was the state of technologies for system integration, especially at the time it was developed. MYCIN was a stand-alone system that required a user to enter all relevant information about a patient by typing in responses to questions MYCIN posed. MYCIN ran on the DEC KI10 PDP-10, supporting a large time-shared system available over the early Internet (ARPANet), before personal computers were developed. MYCIN's greatest influence was accordingly its demonstration of the power of its representation and reasoning approach. Rule-based systems in many non-medical domains were developed in the years that followed MYCIN's introduction of the approach. In the 1980s, expert system "shells" were introduced (including one based on MYCIN, known as E-MYCIN (followed by Knowledge Engineering Environment - KEE)) and supported the development of expert systems in a wide variety of application areas. A difficulty that rose to prominence during the development of MYCIN and subsequent complex expert systems has been the extraction of the necessary knowledge for the inference engine to use from the human expert in the relevant fields into the rule base (the so-called "knowledge acquisition bottleneck").
Read more →
Grammar systems theory

Grammar systems theory is a field of theoretical computer science that studies systems of finite collections of formal grammars generating a formal language. Each grammar works on a string, a so-called sequential form that represents an environment. Grammar systems can thus be used as a formalization of decentralized or distributed systems of agents in artificial intelligence. Let A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } be a simple reactive agent moving on the table and trying not to fall down from the table with two reactions, t for turning and ƒ for moving forward. The set of possible behaviors of A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } can then be described as formal language L A = { ( f m t n f r ) + : 1 ≤ m ≤ k ; 1 ≤ n ≤ ℓ ; 1 ≤ r ≤ k } , {\displaystyle \mathbb {L_{A}} =\{(f^{m}t^{n}f^{r})^{+}:1\leq m\leq k;1\leq n\leq \ell ;1\leq r\leq k\},} where ƒ can be done maximally k times and t can be done maximally ℓ times considering the dimensions of the table. Let G A {\displaystyle \mathbb {G_{A}} } be a formal grammar which generates language L A {\displaystyle \mathbb {L_{A}} } . The behavior of A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } is then described by this grammar. Suppose the A {\displaystyle \mathbb {A} } has a subsumption architecture; each component of this architecture can be then represented as a formal grammar, too, and the final behavior of the agent is then described by this system of grammars. The schema on the right describes such a system of grammars which shares a common string representing an environment. The shared sequential form is sequentially rewritten by each grammar, which can represent either a component or generally an agent. If grammars communicate together and work on a shared sequential form, it is called a Cooperating Distributed (DC) grammar system. Shared sequential form is a similar concept to the blackboard approach in AI, which is inspired by an idea of experts solving some problem together while they share their proposals and ideas on a shared blackboard. Each grammar in a grammar system can also work on its own string and communicate with other grammars in a system by sending their sequential forms on request. Such a grammar system is then called a Parallel Communicating (PC) grammar system. PC and DC are inspired by distributed AI. If there is no communication between grammars, the system is close to the decentralized approaches in AI. These kinds of grammar systems are sometimes called colonies or Eco-Grammar systems, depending (besides others) on whether the environment is changing on its own (Eco-Grammar system) or not (colonies).
Read more →
Buddhism and artificial intelligence

The relationship between Buddhist philosophy and artificial intelligence (AI) includes how principles such as the reduction of suffering and ethical responsibility may influence AI development. Buddhist scholars and philosophers have explored questions such as whether AI systems could be considered sentient beings under Buddhist definitions, and how Buddhist ethics might guide the design and application of AI technologies. Some Buddhist scholars, including Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma, have analyzed the ethical implications of AI, emphasizing the distinction between satisfying sensory desires and pursuing the reduction of suffering. Other thinkers, such as Thomas Doctor and colleagues, have proposed applying the Bodhisattva vow—a commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings—as a guiding principle for AI system design. Buddhist scholars and ethicists have examined Buddhist ethical principles, such as nonviolence, in relation to AI, focusing on the need to ensure that AI technologies are not used to cause harm. == Context == === Sentient beings === A major goal in Buddhist philosophy is the removal of suffering for all sentient beings, an aspiration often referred to in the Bodhisattva vow. Discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) in relation to Buddhist principles have raised questions about whether artificial systems could be considered sentient beings or how such systems might be developed in ways that align with Buddhist concepts. Buddhists have varying opinions about AI sentience, but if AI systems are determined to be sentient under Buddhist definitions, their suffering would also need to be addressed and alleviated in accordance with the principles of Buddhist thought. == Buddhist principles in AI system design == === Nonviolence and AI === The broadest ethical concern is that artificial intelligence should align with the Buddhist principle of nonviolence. From this perspective, AI systems should not be designed or used to cause harm. === Instrumental and transcendental goals === Scholars Somparn Promta and Kenneth Einar Himma have argued that the advancement of artificial intelligence can only be considered instrumentally good, rather than good a priori, from a Buddhist perspective. They propose two main goals for AI designers and developers: to set ethical and pragmatic objectives for AI systems, and to fulfill these objectives in morally permissible ways. Promta and Himma identify two potential purposes for creating AI systems. The first is to fulfill our sensory desires and survival instincts, similar to other tools. They suggest that many AI developers implicitly prioritize this goal by focusing on technicalities rather than broader functionalities. The second, and more important goal according to Buddhist teachings, is to transcend these desires and instincts. In texts like the Brahmajāla Sutta and minor Malunkya Sutta, the Buddha emphasizes that sensory desires and survival instincts confine beings to suffering, and that eliminating suffering is the primary goal of human life. Promta and Himma argue that AI has the potential to assist humanity in transcending suffering by helping individuals overcome survival-driven instincts. === Intelligence as care === Thomas Doctor, Olaf Witkowski, Elizaveta Solomonova, Bill Duane, and Michael Levin propose redefining intelligence through the concept of "intelligence as care," and promote it as a slogan. Inspired by the Bodhisattva vow, they suggest this principle could guide AI system design. The Bodhisattva vow involves a formal commitment to alleviate suffering for all sentient beings, with four primary objectives: Liberating all beings from suffering. Extirpating all forms of suffering. Mastering endless techniques of practicing Dharma (Pali: dhammakkhandha, Sanskrit: dharmaskandha). Achieving ultimate enlightenment (Sanskrit: अनुत्तर सम्यक् सम्बोधि, Romanized: anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi). This approach positions AI as a tool for exercising infinite care and alleviating stress and suffering for sentient beings. Doctor et al. emphasize that AI development should align with these altruistic principles.
Read more →
Representational harm

Systems cause representational harm when they misrepresent a group of people in a negative manner. Representational harms include perpetuating harmful stereotypes about or minimizing the existence of a social group, such as a racial, ethnic, gender, or religious group. Machine learning algorithms often commit representational harm when they learn patterns from data that have algorithmic bias, and this has been shown to be the case with large language models. While preventing representational harm in models is essential to prevent harmful biases, researchers often lack precise definitions of representational harm and conflate it with allocative harm, an unequal distribution of resources among social groups, which is more widely studied and easier to measure. However, recognition of representational harms is growing and preventing them has become an active research area. Researchers have recently developed methods to effectively quantify representational harm in algorithms, making progress on preventing this harm in the future. == Types == Three prominent types of representational harm include stereotyping, denigration, and misrecognition. These subcategories present many dangers to individuals and groups. Stereotypes are oversimplified and usually undesirable representations of a specific group of people, usually by race and gender. This often leads to the denial of educational, employment, housing, and other opportunities. For example, the model minority stereotype of Asian Americans as highly intelligent and good at mathematics can be damaging professionally and academically. Representational harm happens when the representation of details teams improves damaging stereotypes, developing social exclusion and prejudice. This experience is particularly noticeable in the depiction of marginalised groups, containing people of color, women, LGBTQ+ people, and people with handicaps. Media depictions of these groups generally stop working to catch their array and intricacy. Instead, they are typically reduced to one-dimensional caricatures, which ultimately continue social prejudices. These organised depictions contribute to the help of hazardous stereotypes and the marginalisation of these locations. Denigration is the action of unfairly criticizing individuals. This frequently happens when the demeaning of social groups occurs. For example, when searching for "Black-sounding" names versus "white-sounding" ones, some retrieval systems bolster the false perception of criminality by displaying ads for bail-bonding businesses. A system may shift the representation of a group to be of lower social status, often resulting in a disregard from society. Research shows that hazardous depictions in the media can have substantial emotional and social impacts on both individuals and areas. Lawrence Bobo examined the issue of Ethnic stereotype in film, tv, and marketing. African Americans are commonly received duties specified by features such as "violent tendencies," "laziness," or being "merely for contentment features." While these representations might appear varied externally, they stay to boost underlying frameworks of white prominence and racial inequality. As a circumstances, Black individuals are frequently represented as law offenders or in secondary roles, which adds to the support of Ethnic stereotype and Institutional racism. Misrecognition, or incorrect recognition, can display in many forms, including, but not limited to, erasing and alienating social groups, and denying people the right to self-identify. Erasing and alienating social groups involves the unequal visibility of certain social groups; specifically, systematic ineligibility in algorithmic systems perpetuates inequality by contributing to the underrepresentation of social groups. Not allowing people to self-identify is closely related as people's identities can be 'erased' or 'alienated' in these algorithms. Misrecognition causes more than surface-level harm to individuals: psychological harm, social isolation, and emotional insecurity can emerge from this subcategory of representational harm. == Quantification == As the dangers of representational harm have become better understood, some researchers have developed methods to measure representational harm in algorithms. Modeling stereotyping is one way to identify representational harm. Representational stereotyping can be quantified by comparing the predicted outcomes for one social group with the ground-truth outcomes for that group observed in real data. For example, if individuals from group A achieve an outcome with a probability of 60%, stereotyping would be observed if it predicted individuals to achieve that outcome with a probability greater than 60%. The group modeled stereotyping in the context of classification, regression, and clustering problems, and developed a set of rules to quantitatively determine if the model predictions exhibit stereotyping in each of these cases. Other attempts to measure representational harms have focused on applications of algorithms in specific domains such as image captioning, the act of an algorithm generating a short description of an image. In a study on image captioning, researchers measured five types of representational harm. To quantify stereotyping, they measured the number of incorrect words included in the model-generated image caption when compared to a gold-standard caption. They manually reviewed each of the incorrectly included words, determining whether the incorrect word reflected a stereotype associated with the image or whether it was an unrelated error, which allowed them to have a proxy measure of the amount of stereotyping occurring in this caption generation. These researchers also attempted to measure demeaning representational harm. To measure this, they analyzed the frequency with which humans in the image were mentioned in the generated caption. It was hypothesized that if the individuals were not mentioned in the caption, then this was a form of dehumanization. == Examples == One of the most notorious examples of representational harm was committed by Google in 2015 when an algorithm in Google Photos classified Black people as gorillas. Developers at Google said that the problem was caused because there were not enough faces of Black people in the training dataset for the algorithm to learn the difference between Black people and gorillas. Google issued an apology and fixed the issue by blocking its algorithms from classifying anything as a primate. In 2023, Google's photos algorithm was still blocked from identifying gorillas in photos. Another prevalent example of representational harm is the possibility of stereotypes being encoded in word embeddings, which are trained using a wide range of text. These word embeddings are the representation of a word as an array of numbers in vector space, which allows an individual to calculate the relationships and similarities between words. However, recent studies have shown that these word embeddings may commonly encode harmful stereotypes, such as the common example that the phrase "computer programmer" is oftentimes more closely related to "man" than it is to "women" in vector space. This could be interpreted as a misrepresentation of computer programming as a profession that is better performed by men, which would be an example of representational harm. == Addressing representational harm == Initiatives to minimise representational harm include advertising for even more inclusive and accurate portrayals of marginalised teams in the media. Scholars and protestors recommend that the method to reducing representational injury depends on raising the selection of voices both behind and before the digital video camera. When marginalized groups are provided the chance to represent themselves, they can check traditional stereotypes and present their experiences additional authentically. Over the last few years, efforts to increase representation of people of color, women, and LGBTQ+ people in conventional media have made some progression. Films such as Selma, routed by Ava DuVernay, and tv series like Pose, developed by Ryan Murphy, have actually been extensively applauded for their nuanced and respectful representations of marginalised communities. These tasks existing complex individualities and stories that move past streamlined stereotypes. Self-representation is one more crucial method to addressing representational harm. By equipping marginalised locations to create their really own tales, media designers can effectively reduce the perpetuation of hazardous stereotypes. This procedure consists of both the manufacturing of media product by participants of these communities and proactively difficult typical media structures that have actually historically omitted them.
Read more →
DAYDREAMER

DAYDREAMER is a goal-based agent and cognitive architecture developed at the University of California, Los Angeles by Erik T. Mueller and Michael G. Dyer beginning in 1983. The system models the human stream of thought and how it is triggered and directed by emotions, simulating human daydreaming. Taking situational descriptions as input, DAYDREAMER produces English-language daydreams as output and encodes new daydreams, plans, and planning strategies for later reuse. The program comprises five components: a scenario generator based on relaxed planning, a dynamic episodic memory, a collection of personal goals and control goals, an emotion component, and domain knowledge of interpersonal relations and everyday occurrences. The source code was released under a free software license in 2015. == History == Erik Mueller began DAYDREAMER in 1983 while he was a doctoral student in the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory of the Computer Science Department at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying under Michael G. Dyer. Initial development of the project was supported by a grant from the W. M. Keck Foundation with matching funds from the UCLA School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. Additionally, Mueller was supported by an Atlantic Richfield Doctoral Fellowship and Dyer by an IBM Faculty Development Award. The first published descriptions of the program appeared in 1985 at the Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Los Angeles and at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society in Irvine. Work on the program continued, and a book, Daydreaming in Humans and Machines, was published by Ablex Publishing in 1990. The program was implemented on top of GATE, a knowledge-representation and inference substrate developed by Mueller and Uri Zernik at UCLA, and was originally written in T, a dialect of Scheme. In 2015, Mueller released the DAYDREAMER source code, version 3.5, a Common Lisp rewrite of the original T implementation, on GitHub under the GNU General Public License version 2. The release comprised approximately 12,000 lines of Common Lisp code, along with the GATE knowledge-representation substrate on which DAYDREAMER had originally been built. == Architecture == The program operates in two modes. In daydreaming mode it daydreams continuously until interrupted, while performance mode allows it to demonstrate behavior it has learned through daydreaming. === Emotion and control goals === Emotions and daydreaming form a feedback loop for DAYDREAMER. Emotions activate goals that produce daydreams, and the resulting daydreams modify existing emotions and trigger new ones, which prompt subsequent daydreaming. Recall of a goal success produces a positive emotion whereas recall of a goal failure produces a negative emotion. Emotions activate a set of goals, called control goals, which direct the course of a daydream. The program has four control goals. "Rationalization" generates reasons why an unsatisfactory outcome is in fact acceptable, in order to reduce a negative emotion and maintain self-esteem. "Revenge" is activated by anger when a failure is caused by another and reduces negative emotion through imagined retaliation. "Failure/success reversal" imagines alternative scenarios in which a failure was prevented or a success did not occur as a means of learning planning strategies for future situations. "Preparation" generates hypothetical future scenarios in order to rehearse plans and actions for events that have not yet occurred. === Scenario generator and relaxed planning === The scenario generator produces the sequence of events that make up a daydream. It operates under multiple, often conflicting personal goals rather than pursuing a single goal, applies relaxation rules that permit the generation of non-realistic scenarios, and it draws on episodic memory of past experiences both as subject matter and as a source of planning knowledge. The personal goals that guide the scenario generator include health, food, sex, friendship, love, possessions, self-esteem, social esteem, enjoyment, and achievement. These goals are organized into a goal tree that specifies their relative importance at any given time. Relaxation rules allow the program to set aside its ordinary constraints when generating a scenario. The four constraints that may be relaxed are the behavior of others, the daydreamer's own attributes, physical constraints, and social constraints. The degree of relaxation varies with the active control goal. For example a failure-reversal goal aimed at alternatives uses a low level of relaxation, whereas a revenge goal aimed at a retaliation uses a high level. === Episodic memory and analogy === DAYDREAMER's episodic memory stores its personal and vicarious experiences along with the daydreams it generates. The memory is described as dynamic because it is continually modified during daydreaming such that previously daydreamed episodes become available alongside real ones. As it daydreams, the program indexes daydreams, future plans or actions, and planning strategies into memory. Episodes are organized and retrieved using surface-level similarities, emotions, abstract themes, and Plot Units which are abstract configurations of positive and negative outcomes developed by Wendy Lehnert. A recalled episode is adapted to the current situation through analogy, which requires less effort than generating an equivalent scenario from scratch. == Sample output == In the sample experience from the source code, called LOVERS1, DAYDREAMER begins from an initial situation in which it has a job, is not romantically involved, and is at home. Starting in daydreaming mode, it activates a top-level goal to be in a romantic relationship because it is not currently in one, and a positive motivating emotion of interest becomes associated with that goal. The program then activates a goal to be entertained and pursues seeing a film as a way to achieve it. Facts asserted into memory are converted to English and produced as output, such as "I want to be going out with someone" and "I have to go see a movie". == Reception and influence == DAYDREAMER has been cited in research on computational models of creativity, emotion, and narrative. Linda Wills and Janet Kolodner cite the program as an example of work on opportunism in their study of serendipitous recognition in design. Joseph Bates, A. Bryan Loyall, and W. Scott Reilly of the Carnegie Mellon Oz Project cite DAYDREAMER among prior work in their description of an architecture combining action, emotion, and social behavior. Rafael Pérez y Pérez, Ricardo Sosa, and Christian Lemaitre cite Mueller's DAYDREAMER as one of the few computer models at the time to model daydreaming during the creative process. Jichen Zhu and D. Fox Harrell likewise cite the program in their work on imagining and agency in generative interactive narrative.
Read more →
Virtual intelligence

Virtual intelligence (VI) is the term given to artificial intelligence that exists within a virtual world. Many virtual worlds have options for persistent avatars that provide information, training, role-playing, and social interactions. The immersion in virtual worlds provides a platform for VI beyond the traditional paradigm of past user interfaces (UIs). What Alan Turing established as a benchmark for telling the difference between human and computerized intelligence was devoid of visual influences. With today's VI bots, virtual intelligence has evolved past the constraints of past testing into a new level of the machine's ability to demonstrate intelligence. The immersive features of these environments provide nonverbal elements that affect the realism provided by virtually intelligent agents. Virtual intelligence is the intersection of these two technologies: Virtual environments: Immersive 3D spaces provide for collaboration, simulations, and role-playing interactions for training. Many of these virtual environments are currently being used for government and academic projects, including Second Life, VastPark, Olive, OpenSim, Outerra, Oracle's Open Wonderland, Duke University's Open Cobalt, and many others. Some of the commercial virtual worlds are also taking this technology into new directions, including the high-definition virtual world Blue Mars. Artificial intelligence (AI): AI is a branch of computer science that aims to create intelligent machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. VI is a type of AI that operates within virtual environments to simulate human-like interactions and responses. == Applications == Cutlass Bomb Disposal Robot: Northrop Grumman developed a virtual training opportunity because of the prohibitive real-world cost and dangers associated with bomb disposal. By replicating a complicated system without having to learn advanced code, the virtual robot has no risk of damage, trainee safety hazards, or accessibility constraints. MyCyberTwin: NASA is among the companies that have used the MyCyberTwin AI technologies. They used it for the Phoenix rover in the virtual world Second Life. Their MyCyberTwin used a programmed profile to relay information about what the Phoenix rover was doing and its purpose. Second China: The University of Florida developed the "Second China" project as an immersive training experience for learning how to interact with the culture and language in a foreign country. Students are immersed in an environment that provides role-playing challenges coupled with language and cultural sensitivities magnified during country-level diplomatic missions or during times of potential conflict or regional destabilization. The virtual training provides participants with opportunities to access information, take part in guided learning scenarios, communicate, collaborate, and role-play. While China was the country for the prototype, this model can be modified for use with any culture to help better understand social and cultural interactions and see how other people think and what their actions imply. Duke School of Nursing Training Simulation: Extreme Reality developed virtual training to test critical thinking with a nurse performing trained procedures to identify critical data to make decisions and performing the correct steps for intervention. Bots are programmed to respond to the nurse's actions as the patient with their conditions improving if the nurse performs the correct actions.
Read more →
Future of Life Institute

The Future of Life Institute (FLI) is a nonprofit organization which aims to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks, with a focus on existential risk from advanced artificial intelligence (AI). FLI's work includes grantmaking, educational outreach, and advocacy within the United Nations, United States government, and European Union institutions. The founders of the Institute include MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, UCSC cosmologist Anthony Aguirre, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. == Purpose == FLI's stated mission is to steer transformative technology towards benefiting life and away from large-scale risks. FLI's philosophy focuses on the potential risk to humanity from the development of human-level or superintelligent artificial general intelligence (AGI), but also works to mitigate risk from biotechnology, nuclear weapons and global warming. == History == === Founding === FLI was founded in March 2014 by MIT cosmologist Max Tegmark, Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn, DeepMind research scientist Viktoriya Krakovna, Tufts University postdoctoral scholar Meia Chita-Tegmark, and UCSC physicist Anthony Aguirre. === Activism === Starting in 2017, FLI has offered an annual "Future of Life Award", with the first awardee being Vasili Arkhipov. The same year, FLI released Slaughterbots, a short arms-control advocacy film. FLI released a sequel in 2021. In 2018, FLI drafted a letter calling for "laws against lethal autonomous weapons". Signatories included Elon Musk, Demis Hassabis, Shane Legg, and Mustafa Suleyman. In January 2023, Swedish magazine Expo reported that the FLI had offered a grant of $100,000 to a foundation set up by Nya Dagbladet, a Swedish far-right online newspaper. In response, Tegmark said that the institute had only become aware of Nya Dagbladet's positions during due diligence processes a few months after the grant was initially offered, and that the grant had been immediately revoked. === Open letter on an AI pause === In March 2023, FLI published a letter titled "Pause Giant AI Experiments: An Open Letter". This called on major AI developers to agree on a verifiable six-month pause of any systems "more powerful than GPT-4" and to use that time to institute a framework for ensuring safety; or, failing that, for governments to step in with a moratorium. The letter said: "recent months have seen AI labs locked in an out-of-control race to develop and deploy ever more powerful digital minds that no-one - not even their creators - can understand, predict, or reliably control". The letter referred to the possibility of "a profound change in the history of life on Earth" as well as potential risks of AI-generated propaganda, loss of jobs, human obsolescence, and society-wide loss of control. Prominent signatories of the letter included Elon Musk, Steve Wozniak, Evan Sharp, Chris Larsen, and Gary Marcus; AI lab CEOs Connor Leahy and Emad Mostaque; politician Andrew Yang; deep-learning researcher Yoshua Bengio; and Yuval Noah Harari. Marcus stated "the letter isn't perfect, but the spirit is right." Mostaque stated, "I don't think a six month pause is the best idea or agree with everything but there are some interesting things in that letter." In contrast, Bengio explicitly endorsed the six-month pause in a press conference. Musk predicted that "Leading AGI developers will not heed this warning, but at least it was said." Some signatories, including Musk, said they were motivated by fears of existential risk from artificial general intelligence. Some of the other signatories, such as Marcus, instead said they signed out of concern about risks such as AI-generated propaganda. The authors of one of the papers cited in FLI's letter, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" including Emily M. Bender, Timnit Gebru, and Margaret Mitchell, criticised the letter. Mitchell said that “by treating a lot of questionable ideas as a given, the letter asserts a set of priorities and a narrative on AI that benefits the supporters of FLI. Ignoring active harms right now is a privilege that some of us don’t have.” === Open letter on prohibiting superintelligence === In October 2025, another letter, the "Statement on Superintelligence", was published. It called for a prohibition on the development of superintelligence not lifted before there is "broad scientific consensus that it will be done safely and controllably" and "strong public buy-in". FLI director Anthony Aguirre explained that "time is running out", expecting that the technology could arrive in as little as one to two years and counting on "widespread realization among society at all its levels" to stop it. He added that "whether it's soon or it takes a while, after we develop superintelligence, the machines are going to be in charge" and "that is not an experiment that we want to just run toward". The list of signatories included Nobel laureates Geoffrey Hinton, Daron Acemoglu, Beatrice Fihn, Frank Wilczek and John C. Mather as well as Hinton's fellow "godfather" of modern AI Yoshua Bengio, Steve Wozniak, Steve Bannon, Paolo Benanti, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. The letter was also signed by the actors Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Stephen Fry, rapper Will.i.am and author Yuval Noah Harari. Former national security advisor Susan Rice, and OpenAI member of technical staff Leo Gao also signed their names to the letter. Polling released alongside the letter showed that 64% of American agreed that superintelligence "shouldn't be developed until it's provably safe and controllable" and only 5% believed it should be developed as quickly as possible. == Operations == === Advocacy === FLI has actively contributed to policymaking on AI. In October 2023, for example, U.S. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer invited FLI to share its perspective on AI regulation with selected senators. In Europe, FLI successfully advocated for the inclusion of more general AI systems, such as GPT-4, in the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act. In military policy, FLI coordinated the support of the scientific community for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. At the UN and elsewhere, the institute has also advocated for a treaty on autonomous weapons. === Research grants === The FLI research program started in 2015 with an initial donation of $10 million from Elon Musk. In this initial round, a total of $7 million was awarded to 37 research projects. In July 2021, FLI announced that it would launch a new $25 million grant program with funding from the Russian–Canadian programmer Vitalik Buterin. === Conferences === In 2014, the Future of Life Institute held its opening event at MIT: a panel discussion on "The Future of Technology: Benefits and Risks", moderated by Alan Alda. The panelists were synthetic biologist George Church, geneticist Ting Wu, economist Andrew McAfee, physicist and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn. Since 2015, FLI has organised biannual conferences with the stated purpose of bringing together AI researchers from academia and industry. As of April 2023, the following conferences have taken place: "The Future of AI: Opportunities and Challenges" conference in Puerto Rico (2015). The stated goal was to identify promising research directions that could help maximize the future benefits of AI. At the conference, FLI circulated an open letter on AI safety which was subsequently signed by Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and many artificial intelligence researchers. The Beneficial AI conference in Asilomar, California (2017), a private gathering of what The New York Times called "heavy hitters of A.I." (including Yann LeCun, Elon Musk, and Nick Bostrom). The institute released a set of principles for responsible AI development that came out of the discussion at the conference, signed by Yoshua Bengio, Yann LeCun, and many other AI researchers. These principles may have influenced the regulation of artificial intelligence and subsequent initiatives, such as the OECD Principles on Artificial Intelligence. The beneficial AGI conference in Puerto Rico (2019). The stated focus of the meeting was answering long-term questions with the goal of ensuring that artificial general intelligence is beneficial to humanity. == In the media == "The Fight to Define When AI is 'High-Risk'" in Wired. "Lethal Autonomous Weapons exist; They Must Be Banned" in IEEE Spectrum. "United States and Allies Protest U.N. Talks to Ban Nuclear Weapons" in The New York Times. "Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat?" in The Chronicle of Higher Education, including interviews with FLI founders Max Tegmark, Jaan Tallinn and Viktoriya Krakovna. "But What Would the End of Humanity Mean for Me?", an interview with Max Tegmark on the ideas behind FLI in The Atlantic.
Read more →
Freddy II

Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.
Read more →
Illia Polosukhin

Illia Polosukhin is a Ukrainian-born computer scientist and entrepreneur known for his work on the transformer architecture in machine learning and for co-founding the NEAR blockchain. == Early life and education == Polosukhin studied at the Kharkiv Polytechnic Institute, later relocating to San Diego and then moving to Silicon Valley. == Career == === Google and transformer research === Polosukhin worked at Google and was part of the team associated with research on self-attention that culminated in the 2017 paper Attention Is All You Need, widely credited with introducing the transformer architecture used in modern large language models. === NEAR Protocol === After his work in machine learning, Polosukhin became a co-founder of NEAR Protocol and later associated with the NEAR Foundation ecosystem. In 2023, Polosukhin publicly argued that increasingly capable A.I. systems should be more transparent and user-controlled, and expressed skepticism that conventional regulation alone would solve problems created by closed, corporate models, warning about risks such as regulatory capture. He has promoted “user-owned AI” concepts that combine open approaches with decentralized infrastructure aligned with the blockchain technology. In 2024, Polosukhin downplayed scenarios of A.I. independently causing human extinction, arguing that conflicts are driven by people and that misuse of AI would reflect human intent and incentives. Later this year, Polosukhin said the NEAR Foundation would reduce its workforce by about 40%. == Publications == Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Lukasz Kaiser, Illia Polosukhin; et al. (2017). "Attention Is All You Need". arXiv.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Read more →
Subvocal recognition

Subvocal recognition (SVR) is the process of taking subvocalization and converting the detected results to a digital output, aural or text-based. A silent speech interface is a device that allows speech communication without using the sound made when people vocalize their speech sounds. It works by the computer identifying the phonemes that an individual pronounces from nonauditory sources of information about their speech movements. These are then used to recreate the speech using speech synthesis. == Input methods == Silent speech interface systems have been created using ultrasound and optical camera input of tongue and lip movements. Electromagnetic devices are another technique for tracking tongue and lip movements. The detection of speech movements by electromyography of speech articulator muscles and the larynx is another technique. Another source of information is the vocal tract resonance signals that get transmitted through bone conduction called non-audible murmurs. They have also been created as a brain–computer interface using brain activity in the motor cortex obtained from intracortical microelectrodes. == Uses == Such devices are created as aids to those unable to create the sound phonation needed for audible speech such as after laryngectomies. Another use is for communication when speech is masked by background noise or distorted by self-contained breathing apparatus. A further practical use is where a need exists for silent communication, such as when privacy is required in a public place, or hands-free data silent transmission is needed during a military or security operation. In 2002, the Japanese company NTT DoCoMo announced it had created a silent mobile phone using electromyography and imaging of lip movement. The company stated that "the spur to developing such a phone was ridding public places of noise," adding that, "the technology is also expected to help people who have permanently lost their voice." The feasibility of using silent speech interfaces for practical communication has since then been shown. In 2019, Arnav Kapur, a researcher from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, conducted a study known as AlterEgo. Its implementation of the silent speech interface enables direct communication between the human brain and external devices through stimulation of the speech muscles. By leveraging neural signals associated with speech and language, the AlterEgo system deciphers the user's intended words and translates them into text or commands without the need for audible speech. == Research and patents == With a grant from the U.S. Army, research into synthetic telepathy using subvocalization is taking place at the University of California, Irvine under lead scientist Mike D'Zmura. NASA's Ames Research Laboratory in Mountain View, California, under the supervision of Charles Jorgensen is conducting subvocalization research. The Brain Computer Interface R&D program at Wadsworth Center under the New York State Department of Health has confirmed the existing ability to decipher consonants and vowels from imagined speech, which allows for brain-based communication using imagined speech, however using EEGs instead of subvocalization techniques. US Patents on silent communication technologies include: US Patent 6587729 "Apparatus for audibly communicating speech using the radio frequency hearing effect", US Patent 5159703 "Silent subliminal presentation system", US Patent 6011991 "Communication system and method including brain wave analysis and/or use of brain activity", US Patent 3951134 "Apparatus and method for remotely monitoring and altering brain waves". Latter two rely on brain wave analysis. == In fiction == The decoding of silent speech using a computer played an important role in Arthur C. Clarke's story and Stanley Kubrick's associated film A Space Odyssey. In this, HAL 9000, a computer controlling spaceship Discovery One, bound for Jupiter, discovers a plot to deactivate it by the mission astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole through lip reading their conversations. In Orson Scott Card's series (including Ender's Game), the artificial intelligence can be spoken to while the protagonist wears a movement sensor in his jaw, enabling him to converse with the AI without making noise. He also wears an ear implant. In Speaker for the Dead and subsequent novels, author Orson Scott Card described an ear implant, called a "jewel", that allows subvocal communication with computer systems. Author Robert J. Sawyer made use of subvocal recognition to allow silent commands to the cybernetic 'companion implants' used by the advanced Neanderthal characters in his Neanderthal Parallax trilogy of science fiction novels. In Earth, David Brin depicts this technology and its uses as a normal gear in the near future. In Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Cory Doctorow has cellphone technology become silent through a cochlear implant and miking the throat to pick up subvocalization. William Gibson's Sprawl Trilogy frequently uses sub-vocalization systems in various devices. In Kage Baker's Company novels, the immortal cyborgs communicate subvocally. In the Hugo Award-winning Hyperion Cantos by Dan Simmons, the characters often use subvocalization to communicate. In the Culture novels by Iain M. Banks, more highly advanced species often communicate subvocally through their technology. In Deus Ex: Human Revolution (2011), the protagonist is augmented with a subvocalization implant for sending covert communications (and a corresponding cochlear implant for receiving covert communications). In the tabletop RPG and video game series Shadowrun, player characters can communicate via subvocal microphones in some instances. In Paranoia, all citizens can speak to the computer via their "cerebral cortech" implants. Alistair Reynolds Revelation Space trilogy frequently uses sub-vocalization systems in various devices.
Read more →
TD-Gammon

TD-Gammon is a computer backgammon program developed in the 1990s by Gerald Tesauro at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center. Its name comes from the fact that it is an artificial neural net trained by a form of temporal-difference learning, specifically TD-Lambda. It explored strategies that humans had not pursued and led to advances in the theory of correct backgammon play. In 1993, TD-Gammon (version 2.1) was trained with 1.5 million games of self-play, and achieved a level of play just slightly below that of the top human backgammon players of the time. In 1998, during a 100-game series, it was defeated by the world champion by a mere margin of 8 points. Its unconventional assessment of some opening strategies had been accepted and adopted by expert players. TD-gammon is commonly cited as an early success of reinforcement learning and neural networks, and was cited in, for example, papers for deep Q-learning and AlphaGo. == Algorithm for play and learning == During play, TD-Gammon examines on each turn all possible legal moves and all their possible responses (lookahead search), feeds each resulting board position into its evaluation function, and chooses the move that leads to the board position that got the highest score. In this respect, TD-Gammon is no different than almost any other computer board-game program. TD-Gammon's innovation was in how it learned its evaluation function. TD-Gammon's learning algorithm consists of updating the weights in its neural net after each turn to reduce the difference between its evaluation of previous turns' board positions and its evaluation of the present turn's board position—hence "temporal-difference learning". The score of any board position is a set of four numbers reflecting the program's estimate of the likelihood of each possible game result: White wins normally, Black wins normally, White wins a gammon, Black wins a gammon. For the final board position of the game, the algorithm compares with the actual result of the game rather than its own evaluation of the board position. The core of TD-gammon is a neural network with 3 layers. The input layer has two types of neurons. One type codes for the board position. They are non-negative integers ranging from 0 to 15, indicating the number of White or Black checkers at each board location. There are 99 input neurons for each, totaling 198 neurons. Another type codes for hand-crafted features previously used in Neurogammon. These features encoded standard concepts used by human experts, such as "advanced anchor," "blockade strength," "home board strength" and the probability of a "blot" (single checker) being hit. The hidden layer contains hidden neurons. Later versions had more of these. The output layer contains 4 neurons, representing the network's estimate of the probability ("equity") that the current board would lead to. The 4 neurons code for: White normal win, White gammon win, Black normal win, Black gammon win. Backgammon win is so rare that Tesauro opted to not represent it. After each turn, the learning algorithm updates each weight in the neural net according to the following rule: w t + 1 − w t = α ( Y t + 1 − Y t ) ∑ k = 1 t λ t − k ∇ w Y k {\displaystyle w_{t+1}-w_{t}=\alpha (Y_{t+1}-Y_{t})\sum _{k=1}^{t}\lambda ^{t-k}\nabla _{w}Y_{k}} where: It was found that picking small λ {\displaystyle \lambda } offered performance roughly equally good, and large λ {\displaystyle \lambda } degraded performance. Because of this, after 1992, TD-Gammon was trained with λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , degenerating into standard TD-learning. This saved compute by a factor of 2. == Development history == Version 1.0 used simple 1-ply search: every next move is scored by the neural net, and the highest-scoring move is selected. Versions 2.0 and 2.1 used 2-ply search: Make a 1-ply analysis to remove unlikely moves ("forward pruning"). Make a 2-play minimax analysis for only the likely moves. Pick the best move, probability-weighted by each of the opponent's 21 possible dice rolls (weighting non-doubles twice as much as doubles). Versions 3.0 and 3.1 used 3-ply search, using 21 2 = 441 {\displaystyle 21^{2}=441} possible dice rolls instead of 21. The last version, 3.1, was trained specifically for an exhibition match against Malcolm Davis at the 1998 AAAI Hall of Champions. It lost at -8 points, mainly due to one blunder, where TD-Gammon opted to double and got gammoned at -32 points. == Experiments and stages of training == Unlike previous neural-net backgammon programs such as Neurogammon (also written by Tesauro), where an expert trained the program by supplying the "correct" evaluation of each position, TD-Gammon was at first programmed "knowledge-free". In early experimentation, using only a raw board encoding with no human-designed features, TD-Gammon reached a level of play comparable to Neurogammon: that of an intermediate-level human backgammon player. Even though TD-Gammon discovered insightful features on its own, Tesauro wondered if its play could be improved by using hand-designed features like Neurogammon's. Indeed, the self-training TD-Gammon with expert-designed features soon surpassed all previous computer backgammon programs. It stopped improving after about 1,500,000 games (self-play) using a three-layered neural network, with 198 input units encoding expert-designed features, 80 hidden units, and one output unit representing predicted probability of winning. == Advances in backgammon theory == TD-Gammon's exclusive training through self-play (rather than imitation learning) enabled it to explore strategies that humans previously had not considered or had ruled out erroneously. Its success with unorthodox strategies had a significant impact on the backgammon community. Late 1991, Bill Robertie, Paul Magriel, and Malcolm Davis, were invited to play against TD-Gammon (version 1.0). A total of 51 games were played, with TD-Gammon losing at -0.25 ppg. Robertie found TD-Gammon to be at the level of a competent advanced player, and better than any previous backgammon program. Robertie subsequently wrote about the use of TD-Gammon for backgammon study. For example, on the opening play, the conventional wisdom was that given a roll of 2-1, 4-1, or 5-1, White should move a single checker from point 6 to point 5. Known as "slotting", this technique trades the risk of a hit for the opportunity to develop an aggressive position. TD-Gammon found that the more conservative play of splitting 24-23 was superior. Tournament players began experimenting with TD-Gammon's move, and found success. Within a few years, slotting had disappeared from tournament play, replaced by splitting, though in 2006 it made a reappearance for 2-1. Backgammon expert Kit Woolsey found that TD-Gammon's positional judgement, especially its weighing of risk against safety, was superior to his own or any human's. TD-Gammon's excellent positional play was undercut by occasional poor endgame play. The endgame requires a more analytical approach, sometimes with extensive lookahead. TD-Gammon's limitation to two-ply lookahead put a ceiling on what it could achieve in this part of the game. TD-Gammon's strengths and weaknesses were the opposite of symbolic artificial intelligence programs and most computer software in general: it was good at matters that require an intuitive "feel" but bad at systematic analysis. It is also poor at doubling strategies. This is likely due to the fact that the neural network is trained without the doubling cube, with the doubling added by feeding the neural network's cubeless equity estimates into theoretically-based heuristic formulae. This was particularly the case in the 1998 exhibition match, where it played 100 games against Malcolm Davis. A single doubling blunder lost the match. TD-gammon was never commercialized or released to the public in some other form, but it inspired commercial backgammon programs based on neural networks, such as JellyFish (1994) and Snowie (1998).
Read more →
Inbenta

Inbenta is an AI company that originated in Barcelona, Spain, in 2005. Inbenta is currently headquartered in Allen, Texas, with additional offices in Spain, São Paulo, Brazil, Toulouse, France, and Tokyo, Japan. Inbenta provides natural language processing and semantic search through artificial intelligence. == History == Inbenta raised $12 Million in their Series B funding round to extend the reach of their artificial intelligence for business solutions. In 2023 Inbenta's new chief executive officer Melissa Solis moved Inbenta's headquarters to One Bethany West in Allen, Texas from Foster City, California. == Controversy == On 23 June 2018, Ticketmaster UK identified malicious software on a customer support product hosted by Inbenta Technologies, compromising personal data and payment details for thousands of Ticketmaster customers. Three days later, Inbenta's CEO Issued a message about the incident to convey the full scope of the breach. Also on its FAQ section, Inbenta claimed that "After a careful analysis of all clues and snapshots from our systems, the technical team at Inbenta discovered that the script had been implemented on the payment page. We were unaware of this, and would have advised against doing so had we known, as it presents a point of vulnerability". On November 13, 2020, the Information Commissioner's Office fined Ticketmaster UK Limited £1.25 million for failing to protect customers' payment details. According to the ICO, "It was because of Ticketmaster's business decision to include the [Inbenta] chat bot on its payment page that the chat bot was able to unlawfully process the personal data of customers."
Read more →