AI For Psychology Students

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

• 

  Zoho Office Suite

  Zoho Office Suite is an online office suite developed by Zoho Corporation. == History == Zoho Office Suite was launched in 2005 with a web-based word processor. Additional products, such as those for spreadsheets and presentations, were incorporated later into the suite. The applications are distributed as software as a service (SaaS). == Products == Zoho uses an open API for its Writer, Sheet, Show, Creator, Meeting, and Planner products. It also has plugins into Microsoft Word and Excel, an OpenOffice.org plugin, and a plugin for Firefox. Zoho Office Suite is free for individuals but offers a plan for teams, which includes Zoho WorkDrive, Zoho Workplace and other Zoho apps. In October 2009, Zoho integrated some of their applications with the Google Apps online suite.

  Read more →
• 

  Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

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

  Read more →
• 

  Type-1 OWA operators

  Type-1 OWA operators are a set of aggregation operators that generalise the Yager's OWA (ordered weighted averaging) operators in the interest of aggregating fuzzy sets rather than crisp values in soft decision making and data mining. These operators provide a mathematical technique for directly aggregating uncertain information with uncertain weights via OWA mechanism in soft decision making and data mining, where these uncertain objects are modelled by fuzzy sets. The two definitions for type-1 OWA operators are based on Zadeh's Extension Principle and α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets. The two definitions lead to equivalent results. == Definitions == === Definition 1 === Let F ( X ) {\displaystyle F(X)} be the set of fuzzy sets with domain of discourse X {\displaystyle X} , a type-1 OWA operator is defined as follows: Given n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,1]} , a type-1 OWA operator is a mapping, Φ {\displaystyle \Phi } , Φ : F ( X ) × ⋯ × F ( X ) ⟶ F ( X ) {\displaystyle \Phi \colon F(X)\times \cdots \times F(X)\longrightarrow F(X)} ( A 1 , ⋯ , A n ) ↦ Y {\displaystyle (A^{1},\cdots ,A^{n})\mapsto Y} such that μ Y ( y ) = sup ∑ k = 1 n w ¯ i a σ ( i ) = y ( μ W 1 ( w 1 ) ∧ ⋯ ∧ μ W n ( w n ) ∧ μ A 1 ( a 1 ) ∧ ⋯ ∧ μ A n ( a n ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{Y}(y)=\displaystyle \sup _{\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}{\bar {w}}_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}=y}\left({\begin{array}{{1}l}\mu _{W^{1}}(w_{1})\wedge \cdots \wedge \mu _{W^{n}}(w_{n})\wedge \mu _{A^{1}}(a_{1})\wedge \cdots \wedge \mu _{A^{n}}(a_{n})\end{array}}\right)} where w ¯ i = w i ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{i}={\frac {w_{i}}{\sum _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}} , and σ : { 1 , ⋯ , n } ⟶ { 1 , ⋯ , n } {\displaystyle \sigma \colon \{1,\cdots ,n\}\longrightarrow \{1,\cdots ,n\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , ⋯ , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\ \forall i=1,\cdots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th highest element in the set { a 1 , ⋯ , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . === Definition 2 === Using the alpha-cuts of fuzzy sets: Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , then for each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,\;1]} , an α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operator with α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level sets { W α i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W_{\alpha }^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} to aggregate the α {\displaystyle \alpha } -cuts of fuzzy sets { A i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{A^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} is: Φ α ( A α 1 , … , A α n ) = { ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) ∑ i = 1 n w i | w i ∈ W α i , a i ∈ A α i , i = 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\ldots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)=\left\{{{\frac {\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}}}{\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}}\left|{w_{i}\in W_{\alpha }^{i},\;a_{i}}\right.\in A_{\alpha }^{i},\;i=1,\ldots ,n}\right\}} where W α i = { w | μ W i ( w ) ≥ α } , A α i = { x | μ A i ( x ) ≥ α } {\displaystyle W_{\alpha }^{i}=\{w|\mu _{W_{i}}(w)\geq \alpha \},A_{\alpha }^{i}=\{x|\mu _{A_{i}}(x)\geq \alpha \}} , and σ : { 1 , ⋯ , n } → { 1 , ⋯ , n } {\displaystyle \sigma :\{\;1,\cdots ,n\;\}\to \{\;1,\cdots ,n\;\}} is a permutation function such that a σ ( i ) ≥ a σ ( i + 1 ) , ∀ i = 1 , ⋯ , n − 1 {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}\geq a_{\sigma (i+1)},\;\forall \;i=1,\cdots ,n-1} , i.e., a σ ( i ) {\displaystyle a_{\sigma (i)}} is the i {\displaystyle i} th largest element in the set { a 1 , ⋯ , a n } {\displaystyle \left\{{a_{1},\cdots ,a_{n}}\right\}} . == Representation theorem of Type-1 OWA operators == Given the n linguistic weights { W i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \left\{{W^{i}}\right\}_{i=1}^{n}} in the form of fuzzy sets defined on the domain of discourse U = [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle U=[0,\;\;1]} , and the fuzzy sets A 1 , ⋯ , A n {\displaystyle A^{1},\cdots ,A^{n}} , then we have that Y = G {\displaystyle Y=G} where Y {\displaystyle Y} is the aggregation result obtained by Definition 1, and G {\displaystyle G} is the result obtained by in Definition 2. == Programming problems for Type-1 OWA operators == According to the Representation Theorem of Type-1 OWA Operators, a general type-1 OWA operator can be decomposed into a series of α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operators. In practice, this series of α {\displaystyle \alpha } -level type-1 OWA operators is used to construct the resulting aggregation fuzzy set. So we only need to compute the left end-points and right end-points of the intervals Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)} . Then, the resulting aggregation fuzzy set is constructed with the membership function as follows: μ G ( x ) = ⋁ α : x ∈ Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) α ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\operatorname {\bigvee } \limits _{\alpha :x\in \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{\alpha }}\alpha } For the left end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) − = min W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{-}=\operatorname {\min } \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} while for the right end-points, we need to solve the following programming problem: Φ α ( A α 1 , ⋯ , A α n ) + = max W α − i ≤ w i ≤ W α + i A α − i ≤ a i ≤ A α + i ⁡ ∑ i = 1 n w i a σ ( i ) / ∑ i = 1 n w i {\displaystyle \Phi _{\alpha }\left({A_{\alpha }^{1},\cdots ,A_{\alpha }^{n}}\right)_{+}=\operatorname {\max } \limits _{\begin{array}{l}W_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq w_{i}\leq W_{\alpha +}^{i}A_{\alpha -}^{i}\leq a_{i}\leq A_{\alpha +}^{i}\end{array}}\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}a_{\sigma (i)}/\sum \limits _{i=1}^{n}{w_{i}}}} A fast method has been presented to solve two programming problem so that the type-1 OWA aggregation operation can be performed efficiently, for details, please see the paper. == Alpha-level approach to Type-1 OWA operation == Three-step process: Step 1—To set up the α {\displaystyle \alpha } - level resolution in [0, 1]. Step 2—For each α ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \alpha \in [0,1]} , Step 2.1—To calculate ρ α + i 0 ∗ {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}} Let i 0 = 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}=1} ; If ρ α + i 0 ≥ A α + σ ( i 0 ) {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}}\geq A_{\alpha +}^{\sigma (i_{0})}} , stop, ρ α + i 0 {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}}} is the solution; otherwise go to Step 2.1-3. i 0 ← i 0 + 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}\leftarrow i_{0}+1} , go to Step 2.1-2. Step 2.2 To calculate ρ α − i 0 ∗ {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}} Let i 0 = 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}=1} ; If ρ α − i 0 ≥ A α − σ ( i 0 ) {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}}\geq A_{\alpha -}^{\sigma (i_{0})}} , stop, ρ α − i 0 {\displaystyle \rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}}} is the solution; otherwise go to Step 2.2-3. i 0 ← i 0 + 1 {\displaystyle i_{0}\leftarrow i_{0}+1} , go to step Step 2.2-2. Step 3—To construct the aggregation resulting fuzzy set G {\displaystyle G} based on all the available intervals [ ρ α − i 0 ∗ , ρ α + i 0 ∗ ] {\displaystyle \left[{\rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }},\;\rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}}\right]} : μ G ( x ) = ⋁ α : x ∈ [ ρ α − i 0 ∗ , ρ α + i 0 ∗ ] ⁡ α {\displaystyle \mu _{G}(x)=\operatorname {\bigvee } \limits _{\alpha :x\in \left[{\rho _{\alpha -}^{i_{0}^{\ast }},\;\rho _{\alpha +}^{i_{0}^{\ast }}}\right]}\alpha } == Some Examples == The type-1 OWA operator with the weights shown in the top figure is used to aggregate the fuzzy sets (solide lines) in the bottom figure, and the dashed line is the aggregation result. == Special cases == Any OWA operators, like maximum, minimum, mean operators; Join operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets, i.e., fuzzy maximum operators; Meet operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets, i.e., fuzzy minimum operators; Join-like operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets; Meet-like operators of (type-1) fuzzy sets. == Generalizations == Type-2 OWA operators have been suggested to aggregate the type-2 fuzzy sets for soft decision making. == Applications == Type-1 OWA operators have been applied to different domains for soft decision making. Improved efficiency of computing approach ; Type reduction of type-2 fuzzy sets ; Group decision making ; Credit risk evaluation ; Information fusion ; Linguistic expressions and symbolic translation ; Sentiment analysis ; Ro

  Read more →
• 

  Legal expert system

  A legal expert system is a domain-specific expert system that uses artificial intelligence to emulate the decision-making abilities of a human expert in the field of law. Legal expert systems employ a rule base or knowledge base and an inference engine to accumulate, reference and produce expert knowledge on specific subjects within the legal domain. == Purpose == It has been suggested that legal expert systems could help to manage the rapid expansion of legal information and decisions that began to intensify in the late 1960s. Many of the first legal expert systems were created in the 1970s and 1980s. Lawyers were originally identified as primary target users of legal expert systems. Potential motivations for this work included: quicker delivery of legal advice; reduced time spent in repetitive, labour-intensive legal tasks; development of knowledge management techniques that were not dependent on staff; reduced overhead and labour costs and higher profitability for law firms; and reduced fees for clients. Some early development work was oriented toward the creation of automated judges. One of the first use cases was the encoding of the British Nationality Act at Imperial College carried out under the supervision of Marek Sergot and Robert Kowalski. Lance Elliot wrote: "The British Nationality Act was passed in 1981 and shortly thereafter was used as a means of showcasing the efficacy of using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques and technologies, doing so to explore how the at-the-time newly enacted statutory law might be encoded into a computerized logic-based formalization." The authors’ seminal article, "The British Nationality Act as a Logic Program," published in 1986 in the Communications of the ACM journal, is one of the first and best-known works in computational law, and one of the most widely cited papers in the field. In 2021, the Inaugural CodeX Prize was awarded to Robert Kowalski, Fariba Sadri, and Marek Sergot in acknowledgment of their groundbreaking work on the application of logic programming to the formalization and analysis of the British Nationality Act. Later work on legal expert systems has identified potential benefits to non-lawyers as a means to increase access to legal knowledge. Legal expert systems can also support administrative processes, facilitate decision-making processes, automate rule-based analyses, and exchange information directly with citizen-users. == Types == === Architectural variations === Rule-based expert systems rely on a model of deductive reasoning that utilizes "If A, then B" rules. In a rule-based legal expert system, information is represented in the form of deductive rules within the knowledge base. In rule-based legal expert systems, logic programming has historically been applied to automate complex compliance paperwork. A notable early example designed for high-volume regulatory filings was the 1999 Intelligent Filing Manager (INTELLIFM), which utilized Prolog rules as its core inference engine to automate the generation, publishing, and population of structured forms via distributed COM interfaces. Case-based reasoning models, which store and manipulate examples or cases, hold the potential to emulate an analogical reasoning process thought to be well-suited for the legal domain. This model effectively draws on known experiences our outcomes for similar problems. A neural net relies on a computer model that mimics that structure of a human brain, and operates in a very similar way to the case-based reasoning model. This expert system model is capable of recognizing and classifying patterns within the realm of legal knowledge and dealing with imprecise inputs. Fuzzy logic models attempt to create 'fuzzy' concepts or objects that can then be converted into quantitative terms or rules that are indexed and retrieved by the system. In the legal domain, fuzzy logic can be used for rule-based and case-based reasoning models. === Theoretical variations === Some legal expert system architects have adopted a very practical approach, employing scientific modes of reasoning within a given set of rules or cases. Others have opted for a broader philosophical approach inspired by jurisprudential reasoning modes emanating from established legal theoreticians. === Functional variations === Some legal expert systems aim to arrive at a particular conclusion in law, while others are designed to predict a particular outcome. An example of a predictive system is one that predicts the outcome of judicial decisions, the value of a case, or the outcome of litigation. == Reception == Many forms of legal expert systems have become widely used and accepted by both the legal community and the users of legal services. == Challenges == === Domain-related problems === The inherent complexity of law as a discipline raises immediate challenges for legal expert system knowledge engineers. Legal matters often involve interrelated facts and issues, which further compound the complexity. Factual uncertainty may also arise when there are disputed versions of factual representations that must be input into an expert system to begin the reasoning process. === Computerized problem solving === The limitations of most computerized problem solving techniques inhibit the success of many expert systems in the legal domain. Expert systems typically rely on deductive reasoning models that have difficulty according degrees of weight to certain principles of law or importance to previously decided cases that may or may not influence a decision in an immediate case or context. === Representation of legal knowledge === Expert legal knowledge can be difficult to represent or formalize within the structure of an expert system. For knowledge engineers, challenges include: Open texture: Law is rarely applied in an exact way to specific facts, and exact outcomes are rarely a certainty. Statutes may be interpreted according to different linguistic interpretations, reliance on precedent cases or other contextual factors including a particular judge's conception of fairness. The balancing of reasons: Many arguments involve considerations or reasons that are not easily represented in a logical way. For instance, many constitutional legal issues are said to balance independently well-established considerations for state interests against individual rights. Such balancing may draw on extra-legal considerations that would be difficult to represent logically in an expert system. Indeterminacy of legal reasoning: In the adversarial arena of law, it is common to have two strong arguments on a single point. Determining the 'right' answer may depend on a majority vote among expert judges, as in the case of an appeal. === Time and cost effectiveness === Creating a functioning expert system requires significant investments in software architecture, subject matter expertise and knowledge engineering. Faced with these challenges, many system architects restrict the domain in terms of subject matter and jurisdiction. The consequence of this approach is the creation of narrowly focused and geographically restricted legal expert systems that are difficult to justify on a cost-benefit basis. Current applications of AI in the legal field utilize machines to review documents, particularly when a high level of completeness and confidence in the quality of document analysis is depended upon, such as in instances of litigation and where due diligence play a role. Among the numerically most quantifiable advantages of AI in the legal field are the time and money saving impact by freeing lawyers from having to spend inordinate amounts of their valuable time on routine tasks, aiding in setting free lawyers’ creative energy by reducing stress. This in turn increases the rate of case load reduction by accomplishing better results in less time, which unlocks potential additional revenue per unit of time spend on a case. The cost of setting up and maintaining AI systems in law is more than offset by the attained savings through increased efficacy; unbalanced cost can be assigned to clients. === Lack of correctness in results or decisions === Legal expert systems may lead non-expert users to incorrect or inaccurate results and decisions. This problem could be compounded by the fact that users may rely heavily on the correctness or trustworthiness of results or decisions generated by these systems. == Examples == ASHSD-II is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models in the area of matrimonial property disputes under English law. CHIRON is a hybrid legal expert system that blends rule-based and case-based reasoning models to support tax planning activities under United States tax law and codes. JUDGE is a rule-based legal expert system that deals with sentencing in the criminal legal domain for offences relating to murder, assault and manslaughter. Legislate is a knowledge graph powered contract management platform whi

  Read more →
• 

  Stanza Living

  Stanza Living is the common brand name for Dtwelve Spaces Private Limited. It provides fully-managed shared living accommodations to students and young professionals. Founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia, the company is present across 23 cities including Delhi, NCR, Bangalore, Visakhapatnam, Hyderabad, Chennai, Coimbatore, Indore, Pune, Baroda, Vijayawada, and Dehradun, Kota in India, with a capacity of 70,000 beds. Stanza Living is a technology-enabled housing concept which provides fully-furnished residences with amenities like meals, internet, laundry services, housekeeping, security and community engagement programmes. The company has an asset-light business model under which it engages in long-term lease agreements with property owners/developers, who convert their assets into shared living residences as per company guidelines. These assets are subsequently operated by Stanza Living. == Industry background == A report by Cushman & Wakefield (C&W) titled 'Exploring the Student Housing Universe in India City Insights', estimates that there were over 9.08 million migrant student enrolments in India's higher educational institutions (HEIs) for the year 2018-19 who need quality accommodation facilities. According to the report, Delhi-NCR, Mumbai, and Pune are the three biggest markets for student housing in the country, and these cities require an additional 4.75 lakh beds from organized co-living operators to meet the current demand. == History == Stanza Living provides tech-enabled, fully managed community living facilities for students and working professionals. The company was launched as a student housing business in Delhi NCR with a capacity of 100 beds, and grew to 14 cities by 2019. By early 2020, the company began catering to working professionals as well. The company has a combined inventory of 70,000 beds under management for both students and working professionals. Stanza Living is currently valued at $300 million. It has raised a capital of about $70 million from leading global investors like Falcon Edge Capital, Sequoia Capital, Matrix Partners and Accel Partners. November 2017 – Seed funding, September 2018 – Series A, March 2019 – Debt financing, July 2019 – Series C round, December 2019 - Debt financing. The company has invested in building technology products for business efficiency and consumer experience, like the Stanza Resident App and Stanza Real Estate App. Stanza Living has close to 1,500 employees across India. It is recognized among Top Real Estate Tech Startups of 2020 across the globe by research and analysis company Tracxn. The company has been shortlisted among Top 25 Start-ups of India in 2019 by LinkedIn == Founders == Stanza Living was co-founded by Anindya Dutta and Sandeep Dalmia. Sandeep Dalmia is an alumnus of Delhi College of Engineering and IIM Ahmedabad. Prior to Stanza, he was a Principal at Boston Consulting Group, working across India, US and South East Asia markets. Anindya Dutta was previously a Real Estate investor with Oaktree Capital and prior to that, he worked at Goldman Sachs in London. He is an alumnus of IIT Kharagpur and IIM Ahmedabad.

  Read more →
• 

  Argüman

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

  Read more →
• 

  Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

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

  Read more →
• 

  Shyster (expert system)

  SHYSTER is a legal expert system developed at the Australian National University in Canberra in 1993. It was written as the doctoral dissertation of James Popple under the supervision of Robin Stanton, Roger Clarke, Peter Drahos, and Malcolm Newey. A full technical report of the expert system, and a book further detailing its development and testing have also been published. SHYSTER emphasises its pragmatic approach, and posits that a legal expert system need not be based upon a complex model of legal reasoning in order to produce useful advice. Although SHYSTER attempts to model the way in which lawyers argue with cases, it does not attempt to model the way in which lawyers decide which cases to use in those arguments. SHYSTER is of a general design, permitting its operation in different legal domains. It was designed to provide advice in areas of case law that have been specified by a legal expert using a bespoke specification language. Its knowledge of the law is acquired, and represented, as information about cases. It produces its advice by examining, and arguing about, the similarities and differences between cases. It derives its name from Shyster: a slang word for someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law and politics. == Methods == SHYSTER is a specific example of a general category of legal expert systems, broadly defined as systems that make use of artificial intelligence (AI) techniques to solve legal problems. Legal AI systems can be divided into two categories: legal retrieval systems and legal analysis systems. SHYSTER belongs to the latter category of legal analysis systems. Legal analysis systems can be further subdivided into two categories: judgment machines and legal expert systems. SHYSTER again belongs to the latter category of legal expert systems. A legal expert system, as Popple uses the term, is a system capable of performing at a level expected of a lawyer: "AI systems which merely assist a lawyer in coming to legal conclusions or preparing legal arguments are not here considered to be legal expert systems; a legal expert system must exhibit some legal expertise itself." Designed to operate in more than one legal domain, and be of specific use to the common law of Australia, SHYSTER accounts for statute law, case law, and the doctrine of precedent in areas of private law. Whilst it accommodates statute law, it is primarily a case-based system, in contradistinction to rule-based systems like MYCIN. More specifically, it was designed in a manner enabling it to be linked with a rule-based system to form a hybrid system. Although case-based reasoning possesses an advantage over rule-based systems by the elimination of complex semantic networks, it suffers from intractable theoretical obstacles: without some further theory it cannot be predicted what features of a case will turn out to be relevant. Users of SHYSTER therefore require some legal expertise. Richard Susskind argues that "jurisprudence can and ought to supply the models of law and legal reasoning that are required for computerized [sic] implementation in the process of building all expert systems in law". Popple, however, believes jurisprudence is of limited value to developers of legal expert systems. He posits that a lawyer must have a model of the law (maybe unarticulated) which includes assumptions about the nature of law and legal reasoning, but that model need not rest on basic philosophical foundations. It may be a pragmatic model, developed through experience within the legal system. Many lawyers perform their work with little or no jurisprudential knowledge, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are worse, or better, at their jobs than lawyers well-versed in jurisprudence. The fact that many lawyers have mastered the process of legal reasoning, without having been immersed in jurisprudence, suggests that it may indeed be possible to develop legal expert systems of good quality without jurisprudential insight. As a pragmatic legal expert system SHYSTER is the embodiment of this belief. A further example of SHYSTER’s pragmatism is its simple knowledge representation structure. This structure was designed to facilitate specification of different areas of case law using a specification language. Areas of case law are specified in terms of the cases and attributes of importance in those areas. SHYSTER weights its attributes and checks for dependence between them. In order to choose cases upon which to construct its opinions, SHYSTER calculates distances between cases and uses these distances to determine which of the leading cases are nearest to the instant case. To this end SHYSTER can be seen to adopt and expand upon nearest neighbor search methods used in pattern recognition. These nearest cases are used to produce an argument (based on similarities and differences between the cases) about the likely outcome in the instant case. This argument relies on the doctrine of precedent; it assumes that the instant case will be decided the same way as was the nearest case. SHYSTER then uses information about these nearest cases to construct a report. The report that SHYSTER generates makes a prediction and justifies that prediction by reference only to cases and their similarities and differences: the calculations that SHYSTER performs in coming to its opinion do not appear in that opinion. Safeguards are employed to warn users if SHYSTER doubts the veracity of its advice. == Results == SHYSTER was tested in four different and disparate areas of case law. Four specifications were written, each representing an area of Australian law: an aspect of the law of trover; the meaning of "authorization [sic]" in copyright law of Australia; the categorisation of employment contracts; and the implication of natural justice in administrative decision-making. SHYSTER was evaluated under five headings: its usefulness, its generality, the quality of its advice, its limitations, and possible enhancements that could be made to it. Despite its simple knowledge representation structure, it has shown itself capable of producing good advice, and its simple structure has facilitated the specification of different areas of law. Appreciating the difficulties encountered by legal expert systems developers in adequately representing legal knowledge can assist in appreciating the shortcomings of digital rights management technologies. Some academics believe future digital rights management systems may become sophisticated enough to permit exceptions to copyright law. To this end SHYSTER's attempt to model "authorization [sic]" in the Copyright Act can be viewed as pioneering work in this field. The term "authorization [sic]" is undefined in the Copyright Act. Consequently, a number of cases have been before the courts seeking answers as to what conduct amounts to authorisation. The main contexts in which the issue has arisen are analogous to permitted exceptions to copyright currently prevented by most digital rights management technologies: "home taping of recorded materials, photocopying in educational institutions and performing works in public". When applied to one case concerning compact cassettes, SHYSTER successfully agreed that Amstrad did not authorise the infringement. 'shyster-myci'n Popple highlighted the most obvious avenue of future research using SHYSTER as the development of a rule-based system, and the linking together of that rule-based system with the existing case-based system to form a hybrid system. This intention was eventually realised by Thomas O’Callaghan, the creator of SHYSTER-MYCIN: a hybrid legal expert system first presented at ICAIL '03, 24–28 June 2003 in Edinburgh, Scotland. MYCIN is an existing medical expert system, which was adapted for use with SHYSTER. MYCIN’s controversial "certainty factor" is not used in SHYSTER-MYCIN. The reason for this is the difficulty in scientifically establishing how certain a fact is in a legal domain. The rule-based approach of the MYCIN part is used to reason with the provisions of an Act of Parliament only. This hybrid system enables the case-based system (SHYSTER) to determine open textured concepts when required by the rule-based system (MYCIN). The ultimate conclusion of this joint endeavour is that a hybrid approach is preferred in the creation of legal expert systems where "it is appropriate to use rule-based reasoning when dealing with statutes, and…case-based reasoning when dealing with cases".

  Read more →
• 

  AI data center

  An AI data center is a specialized data center facility designed for the computationally intensive tasks of training and running inference for artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning models. Unlike general-purpose data centers, they are optimized for the parallel processing demands of AI workloads, typically using hardware such as AI accelerators (e.g., GPUs, TPUs) and high-speed interconnects. The global push to construct these specialized facilities accelerated dramatically during the AI boom of the 2020s. Memory manufacturers prioritized production of High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) essential for AI servers, which led to a global memory supply shortage amid a broader competition for advanced chips, power, and infrastructure. Major tech companies are estimated to spend $650 billion on AI data centers in 2026. == Architecture == Data centers for building and running large machine learning models contain specialized computer chips, GPUs, that use 2 to 4 times as much energy as their regular CPU counterparts (250-500 watts). AI data centers use 60 or more kilowatts per server rack, whereas more standard data centers typically use 5 to 10 kilowatts per rack. == Operators == As of August 2025, The Information tracked 18 planned or existing AI data centers in the United States, operated by Amazon Web Services, CoreWeave, Crusoe, Meta, Microsoft/OpenAI, Oracle, Tesla, and xAI. Other AI data center operators include Digital Realty and Alibaba. Data centers are also being built in China, India, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and Canada. The New Yorker described CoreWeave as the most prominent AI data center operator in the United States. Two types of data center providers for machine learning have been noted: hyperscalers and neoclouds. The Verge listed large technology companies such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon as hyperscalers. The New York Times described neoclouds as "a new generation of data center providers". CoreWeave, Nebius, Nscale, and Lambda have been described as examples of neoclouds. In January 2025, OpenAI, in partnership with Oracle and Softbank, announced the Stargate project, which as of September 2025 is composed of six built or proposed AI data centers in the United States. In response to the Stargate project, Amazon launched in October 2025 an AI data center on 1,200 acres of farmland in Indiana. This data center, known as Project Rainier, is one of the largest AI data centers in the world, with Amazon spending $11 billion on the project. Rainier is specifically intended for training and running machine learning models from Anthropic. As of that time, this facility contains seven data centers (out of an estimated 30 planned) and will use 2.2 gigawatts of electricity (equivalent to 1 million households) and millions of gallons of water per year. Computer chips from Annapurna Labs and Anthropic, Trainium 2, were designed for use in such facilities. Amazon pumped millions of gallons of water out of the ground to construct the data center, and as of June 2025, Indiana state officials are investigating whether this dewatering process led to dry wells for local residents. In November 2025, Anthropic announced a plan in partnership with Fluidstack to develop artificial intelligence infrastructure in the United States, including data centers in New York and Texas, worth $50 billion. Other AI data center projects include the Colossus supercomputer from xAI, a Louisiana-based project from Meta, Hyperion, expected to use 5 GW of power, and a second Ohio-based Meta project, Prometheus, with a capacity of 1 GW. A 3,200-acre AI data center, capable of 4.4-4.5 GW of power and located on the decommissioned Homer City Generating Station, is under construction as of 2025, and will use seven 30-acre gas generating stations supplied by EQT. As of December 2025, CRH is working on over 100 data centers in the United States. In 2025, ExxonMobil and NextEra announced plans to build a data center powered by natural gas and using carbon capture technology, with 1.2 GW of power capacity. They previously purchased 2,500 acres of land in the Southeastern United States and plan to market the data center to an artificial intelligence company. The increased interest in AI data centers has led to several executives from companies in that space becoming billionaires, including CoreWeave, QTS, Nebius, Astera Labs, Groq, Fermi (which is connected to former United States Secretary of Energy Rick Perry), Snowflake and Cipher Mining. Several companies involved in cryptocurrency mining, such as Bitdeer, CoreWeave, Cipher Mining, TeraWulf, IREN, Core Scientific, and CleanSpark have also been involved with AI data centers. == Finances == Between January and August 2024, Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon collectively spent $125 billion on AI data centers. Citigroup forecasted that $2.8 trillion would be spent on AI data centers by 2030, while McKinsey and Company estimated that almost $7 trillion would be spent globally by that time. According to S&P Global, $61 billion has been spent on the data center market as a whole in 2025, while debt issuance for data centers was $182 billion during the same year. Large technology companies have offloaded the financial risks of building AI data centers by setting up special purpose vehicles or by contracting with neoclouds. For example, Meta's Hyperion was mostly funded by Blue Owl Capital, which did so using a bond offering from PIMCO. Those bonds were sold to a number of clients, including BlackRock. Meta did not borrow money itself and instead established a special purpose vehicle from which it would rent the data center. This deal was structured by Morgan Stanley for $30 billion, the largest known private capital transaction as of 2025. Neoclouds such as CoreWeave have gone into debt to buy computer chips from Nvidia for their data centers, and the chips themselves have been used for loan collateral. As of December 2025, CoreWeave took out three GPU-backed loans, collectively worth $12.4 billion, from private credit firms (Blackstone, Coatue, BlackRock, PIMCO) and from banks (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo). Thus, these companies provide an indirect connection between private credit and established banks. Data centers have also established asset-backed securities, and debt for data centers has its own derivative financial products. The real estate industry, including asset managers, public companies and private investors, has also invested in data centers. == Energy sourcing == == Environmental footprint == Average AI data centers have an electricity footprint equivalent to 100,000 households, and use billions of gallons of water for cooling their hardware. In 2025, the International Energy Agency estimated that the larger AI data centers currently under construction could consume as much electricity as 2 million households. A 2024 report from the United States Department of Energy stated that data centers overall used 17 billion gallons of water per year in the United States, primarily due to "rapid proliferation of AI servers", and that this usage was forecasted to grow to nearly 80 billion gallons by 2028. Researchers estimated that AI data centers in the United States would emit 24-44 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and use 731–1,125 million cubic meters of water per year between 2024 and 2030. Peaking power plants, which have been proposed as a power source for AI data centers, emit sulfur dioxide and have historically been located disproportionately near communities of color in the United States. Reciprocating internal combustion engines, proposed as another power source for a data center, emit PM 2.5, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds. == AI data centers in the United States == In the United States, both the Biden administration and second Trump administration supported the construction of AI data centers. In January 2025, then-president Joe Biden signed an executive order for federal government agencies to support AI data centers on federal sites built by private companies, study their effect on energy prices, and encourage their use of renewable energy. In April 2025, the United States Department of Energy suggested 16 possible sites, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In its July 2025 AI Action Plan, the second Trump administration supported increased production of AI data centers. Several US states have incentivized local data center construction. For example, in 2024, lawmakers in Michigan approved tax breaks for data center equipment and construction material. Some data center companies have also invested or promised to invest in the infrastructure of local communities. In December 2025, Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren, Chris Van Hollen, and Richard Blumenthal wrote to seven technology companies (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, CoreWeave, Digital Realty, and Equinix) that they w

  Read more →
• 

  Willy's Chocolate Experience

  Willy's Chocolate Experience was an unlicensed event based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that took place in Glasgow, Scotland, in February 2024. The event was promoted as an immersive and interactive family experience, illustrated on a promotional website with "dreamlike" AI-generated images. Once it was discovered that the event was held in a sparsely decorated warehouse, many customers complained, and the police were called to the venue. The event went viral on the Internet and attracted worldwide media attention. The event drew comparisons to the 2008 Lapland New Forest controversy, the 2014 Tumblr fan convention DashCon, and Billy McFarland's 2017 Fyre Festival. == Background and advertising == The event was stated to take place over the weekend of 24–25 February 2024. Promotional material advertised "stunning and intricately designed settings inspired by Roald Dahl's timeless tale" and "an array of delectable treats scattered throughout the experience". Both the website and promotional material used poor-quality AI-generated images, which included several spelling errors such as "cartchy tuns" and "a pasadise of sweet teats" and nonsensical words such as "catgacating" and "exarserdray". Tickets cost up to £35 per person. While the event was being promoted in early February, a Reddit user who saw Facebook advertisements suspected it to be a scam and was surprised that people were apparently buying tickets based solely on AI-generated images. The event was organised by House of Illuminati, a company registered to Billy Coull which claimed to offer "unparalleled immersive experiences". An investigation by Third Force News conducted after the event described Coull's previous "murky involvement in the charity sector." Coull had previously registered several other companies and claimed to work as a "consultant" for the now-defunct brand Empowerity, formerly known as the charity Gowanbank Community Hub. In 2021, Gowanbank was forced to remove claims of a £95-per-ticket fundraising "gala" at DoubleTree Glasgow which had been falsely advertised to feature TV personalities and performers including Gok Wan and Joe Black. Coull had claimed to be a doctor with a fake degree from a false university that provided "metaphysical degrees", and had attempted to use the charity to win the 2022 Glasgow City Council election in the seat of Greater Pollok, though he never registered for the election. In the summer of 2023, he independently published 17 AI-generated books on various topics, including vaccine conspiracy theories. Rolling Stone concluded that House of Illuminati's websites and event descriptions were likely written by an AI chatbot, such as ChatGPT. Three actors were hired to portray "Willy McDuff", a character based on Willy Wonka. One of them, Paul Connell, said that the cast were given one day to learn the script. Another actor playing Willy McDuff was 18-year-old Michael Archibald; the experience was his first ever acting job, and he was given the script at 6 pm on Friday before the event began on Saturday. Kirsty Paterson, an actress who played one of the Oompa-Loompas (called "Wonkidoodles" in the script), said that the job offer had been posted on Indeed.com and offered £500 for two days of work. The day before the event, the actors attended a dress rehearsal at the sparsely decorated venue. They were told that others would be working through the night on the production. When they returned on the day of the event, the venue was in the same condition. Paterson was given her costume an hour before the event opened, saying that "We were just handed an Amazon box that probably arrived that morning." == Script == The script for the event is titled Wonkidoodles at McDuff's Chocolate Factory: A Script, and describes Willy McDuff leading an audience through the Garden of Enchantment and the Twilight Tunnel. Once there, they are confronted by a character called The Unknown, described as "an evil chocolate maker who lives in the walls" who seeks to steal the magical "Anti-Graffiti Gobstopper" from McDuff's Imagination Lab. The gobstopper is "a sweet so powerful, it can make any room sparkle without lifting a finger". McDuff defeats The Unknown by amplifying the power of the gobstopper and causing his enemy to be "gently swept up by a robotic vacuum, humorously ending the confrontation". The script was unusual in that it included stage directions for the audience, and descriptions of their reactions. Connell described it as "15 pages of AI-generated gibberish of me just monologuing these mad things", and compared the vacuum cleaner plot point to that of the Nintendo video game Luigi's Mansion. Interviewed after the event, Coull claimed to have written the script himself, using AI only to "check spelling, grammar, and continuity" as he said he had dyslexia. == Event == The event was held at the Box Hub Warehouse event space in Whiteinch, an industrial area of Glasgow. Customers described the venue as "little more than an abandoned, empty warehouse", with set dressings including a small bouncy castle, AI-generated backdrop images pinned to some of the walls, and props which were "strewn about on bare concrete floors". The venue's windows were dirty and its air conditioning systems were left exposed. Paterson has stated that by the time she saw the venue, she had already signed her contract and "didn't want to disappoint the kids", and thus chose to proceed with the work. The Unknown was played by a 16-year-old actress named Felicia Dawkins, who wore a silver mask and a black cloak. Young children were frightened by the character, who appeared from behind a large rectangular mirror. Despite the script calling for The Unknown to be defeated with a vacuum cleaner, no such prop was provided, and actors were instead asked to improvise. Connell said that he and other employees were told to give each child "two jelly beans and a quarter of a cup of lemonade", although the limited supply of jelly beans quickly ran out. Paterson and another "Wonkidoodle" actress, Jenny Fogarty, said that after the first three 45-minute performances, the cast were told to abandon the script and instead let guests walk through the venue, a process that Paterson said took "about two minutes". The character of The Unknown, previously introduced as the main antagonist, was now "scaring children for no reason". One of the actors playing McDuff improvised the idea that children should pull a "silly face" at The Unknown to scare them away, but Dawkins said that, in other cases, she "just had to awkwardly walk back to my corner". Connell was told he would be given a 15-minute break every 45 minutes, but on the day of the event, he played Willy McDuff for three and a half hours without a break. After returning from a lunch break, Connell encountered a crowd of customers demanding refunds from Coull, and the other actors were unsure what to do next. After being told that the event was now cancelled halfway through its opening day, the actors left and went to a pub. Upon returning to the venue some time later, Connell said that he felt "the threat of violence had become quite high" and that there were two police vans and two squad cars at the scene. == Customer reviews and response == Willy's Chocolate Experience was widely criticised by those who attended it, many of whom demanded refunds. One customer, who had driven with his children for two hours to reach the event, described it as an "absolute con". Other visitors who arrived after the event was closed and were not informed of its cancellation requested compensation for wasted rail fares. Following the event's cancellation, Coull offered to refund 850 people, a statement repeated by the event's Facebook page. Some Facebook users stated that they had received their money back. Paterson and Fogarty stated that they only received half of their paycheque. Box Hub, the organisation that had rented the warehouse to House of Illuminati, issued an apology on House of Illuminati's behalf, stating that they "either have no regards for the families and young children they have disappointed or are too embarrassed to comment", and offered to provide a venue free of charge for those who attended the event. House of Illuminati later stated that they would not host any future events. Coull deleted his LinkedIn profile, his YouTube channel, and his personal website in response to the controversy. A few days after the event, Connell said he felt that Coull was "probably one of the most disliked people in Glasgow right now". In an interview with The Sunday Times, Coull apologised for how the event turned out, saying he would accept responsibility. == Fundraising == In an interview with Wired magazine, Connell stated that he and the other actors were working with parents to provide a free show for the children who attended. Some items from the event were later auctioned for charity. The venue auctioned the leftover hand-written "even

  Read more →
• 

  Death of Elaine Herzberg

  The death of Elaine Herzberg (August 2, 1968 – March 18, 2018) was the first recorded case of a pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car, after a collision that occurred late in the evening of March 18, 2018. Herzberg was pushing a bicycle across a four-lane road in Tempe, Arizona, United States, when she was struck by an Uber test vehicle, which was operating in self-drive mode with a human safety backup driver sitting in the driving seat. Herzberg was taken to the local hospital where she died of her injuries. Following the fatal incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) issued a series of recommendations and sharply criticized Uber. The company suspended testing of self-driving vehicles in Arizona, where such testing had been approved since August 2016. Uber chose not to renew its permit for testing self-driving vehicles in California when it expired at the end of March 2018. Uber resumed testing in December 2018, starting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In March 2019, Arizona prosecutors ruled that Uber was not criminally responsible for the crash. The back-up driver of the vehicle was charged with negligent homicide, pled guilty to endangerment, and was sentenced to three years' probation. While Herzberg was the first pedestrian killed by a self-driving car, driver Gao Yaning died in a Tesla semi-autonomous car two years earlier. A reporter for The Washington Post compared Herzberg's fate with that of Bridget Driscoll who, in the United Kingdom in 1896, was the first pedestrian to be killed by an automobile. The Arizona incident has magnified the importance of collision avoidance systems for self-driving vehicles. == Collision summary == Herzberg was crossing Mill Avenue (North) from west to east, approximately 360 feet (110 m) south of the intersection with Curry Road, outside the designated pedestrian crosswalk, close to the Red Mountain Freeway. She was pushing a bicycle laden with shopping bags, and had crossed at least two lanes of traffic when she was struck at approximately 9:58 pm MST (UTC−07:00) by a prototype Uber self-driving car based on a Volvo XC90, which was traveling north on Mill. The vehicle had been operating in autonomous mode since 9:39 pm, nineteen minutes before it struck and killed Herzberg. The car's human safety backup driver, Rafaela Vasquez, did not intervene in time to prevent the collision. Vehicle telemetry obtained after the crash showed that the human operator responded by moving the steering wheel less than a second before impact, and she engaged the brakes less than a second after impact. == Cause investigation == The county district attorney's office recused itself from the investigation, due to a prior joint partnership with Uber promoting their services as an alternative to driving under the influence of alcohol. Accounts differ on the speed limit at the place of the incident. According to Tempe police the car was traveling in a 35 mph (56 km/h) zone, but this is contradicted by a posted speed limit of 45 mph (72 km/h). The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) sent a team of federal investigators to gather data from vehicle instruments, and to examine vehicle condition along with the actions taken by the safety driver. Their preliminary findings were substantiated by multiple event data recorders and proved the vehicle was traveling 43 miles per hour (69 km/h) when Herzberg was first detected 6 seconds (378 feet (115 m)) before impact; during 4.7 seconds the self driving system did not infer that emergency braking was needed. A vehicle traveling 43 mph (69 km/h) can generally stop within 89 feet (27 m) once the brakes are applied. The machine needed to be 1.3 seconds (82 feet (25 m)) away prior to discerning that emergency braking was required, whereas at least that much distance was required to stop. The system failed to behave properly. A total stopping distance of 76 feet itself would imply a safe speed under 25 mph (40 km/h). Human intervention was still legally required. Computer perception–reaction time would have been a speed limiting factor had the technology been superior to humans in ambiguous situations; however, the nascent computerized braking technology was disabled the day of the crash, and the machine's apparent 4.7-second perception–reaction (alarm) time allowed the car to travel 250 feet (76 m). Video released by the police on March 21 showed the safety driver was not watching the road moments before the vehicle struck Herzberg. === Environment === In widely disseminated remarks that would shape the narrative about the crash, which were later seen as prejudicial and subsequently contradicted by her own department, Tempe Police Chief Sylvia Moir was quoted stating that the collision was "unavoidable" based on the initial police investigation, which included a review of the video captured by an onboard camera. Moir faulted Herzberg for crossing the road in an unsafe manner: "It is dangerous to cross roadways in the evening hour when well-illuminated, managed crosswalks are available." According to Uber, safety drivers were trained to keep their hands very close to the wheel all the time while driving the vehicle so they were ready to quickly take control if necessary. The driver said it was like a flash, the person walked out in front of them. His [sic] first alert to the collision was the sound of the collision. [...] it's very clear it would have been difficult to avoid this collision in any kind of mode (autonomous or human-driven) based on how she came from the shadows right into the roadway. Tempe police released video on March 21, 2018, showing footage recorded by two onboard cameras: one forward-looking, and one capturing the safety driver's actions. The forward-facing video shows that the self-driving car was traveling in the far right lane when it struck Herzberg. The driver-facing video shows the safety driver was looking down prior to the collision. The Uber operator is responsible for intervening and taking manual control when necessary as well as for monitoring diagnostic messages, which are displayed on a screen in the center console. In an interview conducted after the crash with NTSB, the driver stated she was monitoring the center stack at the time of the collision. After the Uber video was released, journalist Carolyn Said noted the police explanation of Herzberg's path meant she had already crossed two lanes of traffic before she was struck by the autonomous vehicle. The Marquee Theatre and Tempe Town Lake are west of Mill Avenue, and pedestrians commonly cross mid-street without detouring north to the crosswalk at Curry. According to reporting by the Phoenix New Times, Mill Avenue contains what appears to be a brick-paved path in the median between the northbound and southbound lanes; however, posted signs prohibit pedestrians from crossing in that location. When the second of the Mill Avenue bridges over the town lake was added in 1994 for northbound traffic, the X-shaped crossover in the median was installed to accommodate the potential closing of one of the two road bridges. The purpose of this brick-paved structure is purely to divert cars from one side to the other if a bridge is closed to traffic, and although it may look like a crosswalk for pedestrians, it is in fact a temporary roadway with vertical curbs and warning signs. === Software issues === Michael Ramsey, a self-driving car expert with Gartner, characterized the video as showing "a complete failure of the system to recognize an obviously seen person who is visible for quite some distance in the frame. Uber has some serious explaining to do about why this person wasn't seen and why the system didn't engage." The NTSB preliminary report, however, noted that the software did order the car to brake 1.3 seconds before the collision. A video shot from the vehicle's dashboard camera showed the safety driver looking down, away from the road. It also appeared that the driver's hands were not hovering above the steering wheel, which is what drivers are instructed to do so they can quickly retake control of the car. Uber had moved from two employees in every car to one. The paired employees had been splitting duties: one ready to take over if the autonomous system failed, and another to keep an eye on what the computers were detecting. The second person was responsible for keeping track of system performance as well as labeling data on a laptop computer. Mr. Kallman, the Uber spokesman, said the second person was in the car for purely data related tasks, not safety. When Uber moved to a single operator, some employees expressed safety concerns to managers, according to the two people familiar with Uber's operations. They were worried that going solo would make it harder to remain alert during hours of monotonous driving. The recorded telemetry showed the system had detected Herzberg six seconds before the crash, and classified her first as an unknown object, then as a

  Read more →
• 

  Privacy Lost

  Privacy Lost is a 2023 short science fiction film directed by Peter Stoel and Robert Berger. It follows a family using augmented reality (AR) and artificial intelligence (AI) devices capable of reading emotional states, raising questions about privacy and manipulation. == Premise == Privacy Lost follows a family using AR glasses that capture and interpret emotions in real time. As the parents argue in a restaurant, their emotional states and even hidden feelings become visible through these glasses. An AI-driven waiter adapts its appearance for each family member, employing emotional data to influence their decisions. == Cast == Brian Kant as Waiter Michael Krass as Husband Estelle Levinson as Waitress Thor van der Linden as Scotty Carlijn van Ramshorst as Wife == Production == Filming took place at HeadQ Productions, a virtual studio located in Amsterdam. The creators sought to depict a near-future scenario in which real-time emotion analysis becomes part of daily interactions. The film was screened at the Augmented World Expo (AWE), where it was noted for its thematic focus on AI-driven manipulation and emotional tracking. The depiction of AR glasses and AI characters integrates modern visual effects to show how devices might analyze emotional responses in real time. It also depicts how AI-driven interactions could influence consumer decisions, pointing to concerns over potential misuse. == Themes == Privacy Lost focuses on the intersection of advanced AI capabilities and AR environments, showing how real-time emotional analysis can be leveraged for targeted persuasion. The film aims to highlight the social and ethical implications of emerging AR and AI technologies, underlining how establishing clear regulatory frameworks for them is necessary to protect individual privacy, govern the storage of emotion-based data, and prevent manipulative practices. Critics describe the film’s theme as dystopian and note that such a reality is unlikely to occur in the near future. However, despite the exaggerated scenario, the film emphasizes the importance of a responsible approach by developers toward emerging technologies.

  Read more →
• 

  AI-complete

  In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), tasks that are hypothesized to require artificial general intelligence to solve are informally known as AI-complete or AI-hard. Calling a problem AI-complete reflects the belief that it cannot be solved by a simple specific algorithm. Prior to 2013, problems supposed to be AI-complete included computer vision, natural language understanding, and dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real-world problem. AI-complete tasks were notably considered useful for distinguishing humans from automated agents, as CAPTCHAs aim to do. == History == The term was coined by Fanya Montalvo by analogy with NP-complete and NP-hard in complexity theory, which formally describes the most famous class of difficult problems. Early uses of the term are in Erik Mueller's 1987 PhD dissertation and in Eric Raymond's 1991 Jargon File. Expert systems, that were popular in the 1980s, were able to solve very simple and/or restricted versions of AI-complete problems, but never in their full generality. When AI researchers attempted to "scale up" their systems to handle more complicated, real-world situations, the programs tended to become excessively brittle without commonsense knowledge or a rudimentary understanding of the situation: they would fail as unexpected circumstances outside of its original problem context would begin to appear. When human beings are dealing with new situations in the world, they are helped by their awareness of the general context: they know what the things around them are, why they are there, what they are likely to do and so on. They can recognize unusual situations and adjust accordingly. Expert systems lacked this adaptability and were brittle when facing new situations. DeepMind published a work in May 2022 in which they trained a single model to do several things at the same time. The model, named Gato, can "play Atari, caption images, chat, stack blocks with a real robot arm and much more, deciding based on its context whether to output text, joint torques, button presses, or other tokens." Similarly, some tasks once considered to be AI-complete, like machine translation, are among the capabilities of large language models. == AI-complete problems == AI-complete problems have been hypothesized to include: AI peer review (composite natural language understanding, automated reasoning, automated theorem proving, formalized logic expert system) Bongard problems Computer vision (and subproblems such as object recognition) Natural language understanding (and subproblems such as text mining, machine translation, and word-sense disambiguation) Autonomous driving Dealing with unexpected circumstances while solving any real world problem, whether navigation, planning, or even the kind of reasoning done by expert systems. == Formalization == Computational complexity theory deals with the relative computational difficulty of computable functions. By definition, it does not cover problems whose solution is unknown or has not been characterized formally. Since many AI problems have no formalization yet, conventional complexity theory does not enable a formal definition of AI-completeness. == Research == Roman Yampolskiy suggests that a problem C {\displaystyle C} is AI-Complete if it has two properties: It is in the set of AI problems (Human Oracle-solvable). Any AI problem can be converted into C {\displaystyle C} by some polynomial time algorithm. On the other hand, a problem H {\displaystyle H} is AI-Hard if and only if there is an AI-Complete problem C {\displaystyle C} that is polynomial time Turing-reducible to H {\displaystyle H} . This also gives as a consequence the existence of AI-Easy problems, that are solvable in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine with an oracle for some problem. Yampolskiy has also hypothesized that the Turing Test is a defining feature of AI-completeness. Groppe and Jain classify problems which require artificial general intelligence to reach human-level machine performance as AI-complete, while only restricted versions of AI-complete problems can be solved by the current AI systems. For Šekrst, getting a polynomial solution to AI-complete problems would not necessarily be equal to solving the issue of artificial general intelligence, while emphasizing the lack of computational complexity research being the limiting factor towards achieving artificial general intelligence. For Kwee-Bintoro and Velez, solving AI-complete problems would have strong repercussions on society.

  Read more →
• 

  Generative adversarial network

  A generative adversarial network (GAN) is a class of machine learning frameworks and a prominent framework for approaching generative artificial intelligence. The concept was initially developed by Ian Goodfellow and his colleagues in June 2014. In a GAN, two neural networks compete with each other in the form of a zero-sum game, where one agent's gain is another agent's loss. Given a training set, this technique learns to generate new data with the same statistics as the training set. For example, a GAN trained on photographs can generate new photographs that look at least superficially authentic to human observers, having many realistic characteristics. Though originally proposed as a form of generative model for unsupervised learning, GANs have also proved useful for semi-supervised learning, fully supervised learning, and reinforcement learning. The core idea of a GAN is based on the "indirect" training through the discriminator, another neural network that can tell how "realistic" the input seems, which itself is also being updated dynamically. This means that the generator is not trained to minimize the distance to a specific image, but rather to fool the discriminator. This enables the model to learn in an unsupervised manner. GANs are similar to mimicry in evolutionary biology, with an evolutionary arms race between both networks. == Definition == === Mathematical === The original GAN is defined as the following game: Each probability space ( Ω , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. There are 2 players: generator and discriminator. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega )} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , where P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} is the set of probability measures on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} . The GAN game is a zero-sum game, with objective function L ( μ G , μ D ) := E x ∼ μ ref , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ y ] + E x ∼ μ G , y ∼ μ D ( x ) ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − y ) ] . {\displaystyle L(\mu _{G},\mu _{D}):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln y]+\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{G},y\sim \mu _{D}(x)}[\ln(1-y)].} The generator aims to minimize the objective, and the discriminator aims to maximize the objective. The generator's task is to approach μ G ≈ μ ref {\displaystyle \mu _{G}\approx \mu _{\text{ref}}} , that is, to match its own output distribution as closely as possible to the reference distribution. The discriminator's task is to output a value close to 1 when the input appears to be from the reference distribution, and to output a value close to 0 when the input looks like it came from the generator distribution. === In practice === The generative network generates candidates while the discriminative network evaluates them. This creates a contest based on data distributions, where the generator learns to map from a latent space to the true data distribution, aiming to produce candidates that the discriminator cannot distinguish from real data. The discriminator's goal is to correctly identify these candidates, but as the generator improves, its task becomes more challenging, increasing the discriminator's error rate. A known dataset serves as the initial training data for the discriminator. Training involves presenting it with samples from the training dataset until it achieves acceptable accuracy. The generator is trained based on whether it succeeds in fooling the discriminator. Typically, the generator is seeded with randomized input that is sampled from a predefined latent space (e.g. a multivariate normal distribution). Thereafter, candidates synthesized by the generator are evaluated by the discriminator. Independent backpropagation procedures are applied to both networks so that the generator produces better samples, while the discriminator becomes more skilled at flagging synthetic samples. When used for image generation, the generator is typically a deconvolutional neural network, and the discriminator is a convolutional neural network. === Relation to other statistical machine learning methods === GANs are implicit generative models, which means that they do not explicitly model the likelihood function nor provide a means for finding the latent variable corresponding to a given sample, unlike alternatives such as flow-based generative model. Compared to fully visible belief networks such as WaveNet and PixelRNN and autoregressive models in general, GANs can generate one complete sample in one pass, rather than multiple passes through the network. Compared to Boltzmann machines and linear ICA, there is no restriction on the type of function used by the network. Since neural networks are universal approximators, GANs are asymptotically consistent. Variational autoencoders might be universal approximators, but it is not proven as of 2017. == Mathematical properties == === Measure-theoretic considerations === This section provides some of the mathematical theory behind these methods. In modern probability theory based on measure theory, a probability space also needs to be equipped with a σ-algebra. As a result, a more rigorous definition of the GAN game would make the following changes:Each probability space ( Ω , B , μ ref ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}},\mu _{\text{ref}})} defines a GAN game. The generator's strategy set is P ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} , the set of all probability measures μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on the measure-space ( Ω , B ) {\displaystyle (\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})} . The discriminator's strategy set is the set of Markov kernels μ D : ( Ω , B ) → P ( [ 0 , 1 ] , B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) ) {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:(\Omega ,{\mathcal {B}})\to {\mathcal {P}}([0,1],{\mathcal {B}}([0,1]))} , where B ( [ 0 , 1 ] ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {B}}([0,1])} is the Borel σ-algebra on [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle [0,1]} .Since issues of measurability never arise in practice, these will not concern us further. === Choice of the strategy set === In the most generic version of the GAN game described above, the strategy set for the discriminator contains all Markov kernels μ D : Ω → P [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \mu _{D}:\Omega \to {\mathcal {P}}[0,1]} , and the strategy set for the generator contains arbitrary probability distributions μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} on Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . However, as shown below, the optimal discriminator strategy against any μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is deterministic, so there is no loss of generality in restricting the discriminator's strategies to deterministic functions D : Ω → [ 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle D:\Omega \to [0,1]} . In most applications, D {\displaystyle D} is a deep neural network function. As for the generator, while μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} could theoretically be any computable probability distribution, in practice, it is usually implemented as a pushforward: μ G = μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{G}=\mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} . That is, start with a random variable z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} , where μ Z {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}} is a probability distribution that is easy to compute (such as the uniform distribution, or the Gaussian distribution), then define a function G : Ω Z → Ω {\displaystyle G:\Omega _{Z}\to \Omega } . Then the distribution μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} is the distribution of G ( z ) {\displaystyle G(z)} . Consequently, the generator's strategy is usually defined as just G {\displaystyle G} , leaving z ∼ μ Z {\displaystyle z\sim \mu _{Z}} implicit. In this formalism, the GAN game objective is L ( G , D ) := E x ∼ μ ref ⁡ [ ln ⁡ D ( x ) ] + E z ∼ μ Z ⁡ [ ln ⁡ ( 1 − D ( G ( z ) ) ) ] . {\displaystyle L(G,D):=\operatorname {E} _{x\sim \mu _{\text{ref}}}[\ln D(x)]+\operatorname {E} _{z\sim \mu _{Z}}[\ln(1-D(G(z)))].} === Generative reparametrization === The GAN architecture has two main components. One is casting optimization into a game, of form min G max D L ( G , D ) {\displaystyle \min _{G}\max _{D}L(G,D)} , which is different from the usual kind of optimization, of form min θ L ( θ ) {\displaystyle \min _{\theta }L(\theta )} . The other is the decomposition of μ G {\displaystyle \mu _{G}} into μ Z ∘ G − 1 {\displaystyle \mu _{Z}\circ G^{-1}} , which can be understood as a reparametrization trick. To see its significance, one must compare GAN with previous methods for learning generative models, which were plagued with "intractable probabilistic computations that arise in maximum likelihood estimation and related strategies". At the same time, Kingma and Welling and Rezende et al. developed the same idea of reparametrization into a general stochastic backpropagation method. Among its first applications was the variational autoencoder. === Move order and st

  Read more →
• 

  Vagueness

  In linguistics and philosophy, a vague predicate is one which gives rise to borderline cases. For example, the English adjective "tall" is vague since it is not clearly true or false for someone of middling height. By contrast, the word "prime" is not vague since every number is definitively either prime or not. Vagueness is commonly diagnosed by a predicate's ability to give rise to the sorites paradox. Vagueness is separate from ambiguity, in which an expression has multiple denotations. For instance the word "bank" is ambiguous since it can refer either to a river bank or to a financial institution, but there are no borderline cases between both interpretations. Vagueness is a major topic of research in philosophical logic, where it serves as a potential challenge to classical logic. Work in formal semantics has sought to provide a compositional semantics for vague expressions in natural language. Work in philosophy of language has addressed implications of vagueness for the theory of meaning, while metaphysicists have considered whether reality itself is vague. == Importance == The concept of vagueness has philosophical importance. Suppose one wants to come up with a definition of "right" in the moral sense. One wants a definition to cover actions that are clearly right and exclude actions that are clearly wrong, but what does one do with the borderline cases? Surely, there are such cases. Some philosophers say that one should try to come up with a definition that is itself unclear on just those cases. Others say that one has an interest in making his or her definitions more precise than ordinary language, or his or her ordinary concepts, themselves allow; they recommend one advances precising definitions. === In law === Vagueness is also a problem which arises in law, and in some cases, judges have to arbitrate regarding whether a borderline case does, or does not, satisfy a given vague concept. Examples include disability (how much loss of vision is required before one is legally blind?), human life (at what point from conception to birth is one a legal human being, protected for instance by laws against murder?), adulthood (most familiarly reflected in legal ages for driving, drinking, voting, consensual sex, etc.), race (how to classify someone of mixed racial heritage), etc. Even such apparently unambiguous concepts such as biological sex can be subject to vagueness problems, not just from transsexuals' gender transitions but also from certain genetic conditions which can give an individual mixed male and female biological traits (see intersex). In the common law system, vagueness is a possible legal defence against by-laws and other regulations. The legal principle is that delegated power cannot be used more broadly than the delegator intended. Therefore, a regulation may not be so vague as to regulate areas beyond what the law allows. Any such regulation would be "void for vagueness" and unenforceable. This principle is sometimes used to strike down municipal by-laws that forbid "explicit" or "objectionable" contents from being sold in a certain city; courts often find such expressions to be too vague, giving municipal inspectors discretion beyond what the law allows. In the US this is known as the vagueness doctrine and in Europe as the principle of legal certainty. === In science === Many scientific concepts are of necessity vague, for instance species in biology cannot be precisely defined, owing to unclear cases such as ring species. Nonetheless, the concept of species can be clearly applied in the vast majority of cases. As this example illustrates, to say that a definition is "vague" is not necessarily a criticism. Consider those animals in Alaska that are the result of breeding huskies and wolves: are they dogs? It is not clear: they are borderline cases of dogs. This means one's ordinary concept of doghood is not clear enough to let us rule conclusively in this case. == Approaches == The philosophical question of what the best theoretical treatment of vagueness is—which is closely related to the problem of the paradox of the heap, a.k.a. sorites paradox—has been the subject of much philosophical debate. === Fuzzy logic === One theoretical approach is that of fuzzy logic, developed by American mathematician Lotfi Zadeh. Fuzzy logic proposes a gradual transition between "perfect falsity", for example, the statement "Bill Clinton is bald", to "perfect truth", for, say, "Patrick Stewart is bald". In ordinary logics, there are only two truth-values: "true" and "false". The fuzzy perspective differs by introducing an infinite number of truth-values along a spectrum between perfect truth and perfect falsity. Perfect truth may be represented by "1", and perfect falsity by "0". Borderline cases are thought of as having a "truth-value" anywhere between 0 and 1 (for example, 0.6). Advocates of the fuzzy logic approach have included K. F. Machina (1976) and Dorothy Edgington (1993). === Supervaluationism === Another theoretical approach is known as "supervaluationism". This approach has been defended by Kit Fine and Rosanna Keefe. Fine argues that borderline applications of vague predicates are neither true nor false, but rather are instances of "truth value gaps". He defends an interesting and sophisticated system of vague semantics, based on the notion that a vague predicate might be "made precise" in many alternative ways. This system has the consequence that borderline cases of vague terms yield statements that are neither true, nor false. Given a supervaluationist semantics, one can define the predicate "supertrue" as meaning "true on all precisifications". This predicate will not change the semantics of atomic statements (e.g. "Frank is bald", where Frank is a borderline case of baldness), but does have consequences for logically complex statements. In particular, the tautologies of sentential logic, such as "Frank is bald or Frank is not bald", will turn out to be supertrue, since on any precisification of baldness, either "Frank is bald" or "Frank is not bald" will be true. Since the presence of borderline cases seems to threaten principles like this one (excluded middle), the fact that supervaluationism can "rescue" them is seen as a virtue. === Subvaluationism === Subvaluationism is the logical dual of supervaluationism, and has been defended by Dominic Hyde (2008) and Pablo Cobreros (2011). Whereas the supervaluationist characterises truth as 'supertruth', the subvaluationist characterises truth as 'subtruth', or "true on at least some precisifications". Subvaluationism proposes that borderline applications of vague terms are both true and false. It thus has "truth-value gluts". According to this theory, a vague statement is true if it is true on at least one precisification and false if it is false under at least one precisification. If a vague statement comes out true under one precisification and false under another, it is both true and false. Subvaluationism ultimately amounts to the claim that vagueness is a truly contradictory phenomenon. Of a borderline case of "bald man" it would be both true and false to say that he is bald, and both true and false to say that he is not bald. === Epistemicist view === A fourth approach, known as "the epistemicist view", has been defended by Timothy Williamson (1994), R. A. Sorensen (1988) and (2001), and Nicholas Rescher (2009). They maintain that vague predicates do, in fact, draw sharp boundaries, but that one cannot know where these boundaries lie. One's confusion about whether some vague word does or does not apply in a borderline case is due to one's ignorance. For example, in the epistemicist view, there is a fact of the matter, for every person, about whether that person is old or not old; some people are ignorant of this fact. === As a property of objects === One possibility is that one's words and concepts are perfectly precise, but that objects themselves are vague. Consider Peter Unger's example of a cloud (from his famous 1980 paper, "The Problem of the Many"): it is not clear where the boundary of a cloud lies; for any given bit of water vapor, one can ask whether it is part of the cloud or not, and for many such bits, one will not know how to answer. Hence, perhaps such a term as 'cloud' is not itself vague, but rather precisely denotes a vague object. This strategy has occasionally been poorly received; most notably, in Gareth Evans' short paper "Can There Be Vague Objects?" (1978), wherein an argument is examined which appears to show that vague identity-statements are impossible (i.e., result in logical incoherence). David Lewis explains that the reader is intended to conclude, with Evans, that—since there clearly are, in fact, meaningful vague identities—any purported proof to the contrary cannot be right; and as the proof relies upon the premise that vague terms precisely denote vague objects, but fails under the view that vague terms reflect a merel

  Read more →