AI For Student Recruitment

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

• 

  IWork

  iWork is an office suite of applications created by Apple for its macOS, iPadOS, and iOS operating systems, and also available cross-platform through the iCloud website. iWork includes the presentation application Keynote, the word-processing and desktop-publishing application Pages, and the spreadsheet application Numbers. Apple's design goals in creating iWork have been to allow Mac users to easily create attractive documents and spreadsheets, making use of macOS's extensive font library, integrated spelling checker, sophisticated graphics APIs and its AppleScript automation framework. The equivalent Microsoft Office applications to Pages, Numbers, and Keynote are Word, Excel, and PowerPoint, respectively. Although Microsoft Office applications cannot open iWork documents, iWork applications can open Office documents for editing, and export documents from iWork's native formats (.pages, .numbers, .key) to Microsoft Office formats (.docx, .xlsx, .pptx, etc.) as well as to PDF files. The oldest application in iWork is Keynote, first released as a standalone application in 2003 for use by Steve Jobs in his presentations. Steve Jobs announced Keynote saying "It's for when your presentation really matters". Pages was released with the first iWork bundle in 2004; Numbers was added in 2007 with the release of iWork '08. The next release, iWork '09, also included beta access to iWork.com, an online service that allowed users to upload and share documents on the web, now integrated into Apple's iCloud service. A version of iWork for iOS was released in 2010 with the first iPad, and the apps have been regularly updated since, including the addition of iPhone support. In 2013, Apple launched iWork web apps in iCloud; even years later, however, their functionality is somewhat limited compared to equivalents on the desktop. iWork was initially sold as a suite for $79, then later at $19.99 per app on OS X and $9.99 per app on iOS. Apple announced in October 2013 that all iOS and OS X devices purchased onwards, whether new or refurbished, would be eligible for a free download of all three iWork apps: after device setup, the user can "claim" the apps on the App Store, after which they are permanently linked to the user’s Apple ID. iWork for iCloud, which also incorporates a document hosting service, is free to all iCloud users. iWork was released for free on macOS and iOS (including older or resold devices) in April 2017. In September 2016, Apple announced that the real-time collaboration feature would be available for all iWork apps. == History == The first version of iWork, iWork '05, was announced on January 11, 2005 at the Macworld Conference & Expo and made available on January 22 in the United States and on January 29 worldwide. iWork '05 comprised two applications: Keynote 2, a presentation creation program, and Pages, a word processor. iWork '05 was sold for US$79. A 30-day trial was also made available for download on Apple's website. Originally IGG Software held the rights to the name iWork. While iWork was billed by Apple as "a successor to AppleWorks", it does not replicate AppleWorks's database and drawing tools. However, iWork integrates with existing applications from Apple's iLife suite through the Media Browser, which allows users to drag and drop music from iTunes, movies from iMovie, and photos from iPhoto and Aperture directly into iWork documents. iWork '06 was released on January 10, 2006 and contained updated versions of both Keynote and Pages. Both programs were released as universal binaries for the first time, allowing them to run natively on both PowerPC processors and the Intel processors used in the new iMac desktop computers and MacBook Pro notebooks which had been announced on the same day as the new iWork suite. The next version of the suite, iWork '08, was announced and released on August 7, 2007 at a special media event at Apple's campus in Cupertino, California. iWork '08, like previous updates, contained updated versions of Keynote and Pages. A new spreadsheet application, Numbers, was also introduced. Numbers differed from other spreadsheet applications, including Microsoft Excel, in that it allowed users to create documents containing multiple spreadsheets on a flexible canvas using a number of built-in templates. iWork '09, was announced on January 6, 2009 and released the same day. It contains updated versions of all three applications in the suite. iWork '09 also included access to a beta version of the iWork.com service, which allowed users to share documents online until that service was decommissioned at the end of July 2012. Users of iWork '09 could upload a document directly from Pages, Keynote, or Numbers and invite others to view it online. Viewers could write notes and comments in the document, and download a copy in iWork, Microsoft Office, or PDF formats. iWork '09 was also released with the Mac App Store on January 6, 2011 at $19.99 per application, and received regular updates after this point, including links to iCloud and a high-DPI version designed to match Apple's MacBook Pro with Retina Display. On January 27, 2010, Apple announced iWork for iPad, to be available as three separate $9.99 applications from the App Store. This version has also received regular updates including a version for pocket iPhone and iPod Touch devices, and an update to take advantage of Retina Display devices and the larger screens of recent iPhones. On October 22, 2013, Apple announced an overhaul of the iWork software for both the Mac and iOS. Both suites were made available via the respective App Stores. The update is free for current iWork owners and was also made available free of charge for anyone purchasing an OS X or iOS device after October 1, 2013. Any user activating the newly free iWork apps on a qualifying device can download the same apps on another iOS or OS X device logged into the same App Store account. The new OS X versions have been criticized for losing features such as multiple selection, linked text boxes, bookmarks, 2-up page views, mail merge, searchable comments, ability to read/export RTF files, default zoom and page count, integration with AppleScript. Apple has provided a road-map for feature re-introduction, stating that it hopes to reintroduce some missing features within the next six months. As of April 1, 2014 a few features—e.g., the ability to set the default zoom—had been reintroduced, though scores had not. Due to using a completely new file format that can work across macOS, Windows, and in most web browsers by using the online iCloud web apps, versions of iWork beginning with iWork 13 and later do not open or allow editing of documents created in versions prior to iWork '09, with users who attempt to open older iWork files being given a pop-up in the new iWork 13 app versions telling them to use the previous iWork '09 (which users may or may not have on their machine) in order to open and edit such files. Accordingly, the current version for OS X (which was initially only compatible with OS X Mavericks 10.9 onwards) moves any previously installed iWork '09 apps to an iWork '09 folder on the users machine (in /Applications/iWork '09/), as a work-around to allow users continued use of the earlier suite in order to open and edit older iWork documents locally on their machine. In October 2015, Apple released an update to mitigate this issue, allowing users to open documents saved in iWork '06 and iWork '08 formats in the latest version of Pages. In 2016, Apple announced that the real-time collaboration feature would be available for all iWork apps, instead of being constrained to using iWork for iCloud. The feature is comparable to Google Docs. == Versions == === Major releases === === Updates === iWork '09 received several updates: iWork 9.0.3 DVD (for Mac OS X 10.5.6 "Leopard" or newer; released August 26, 2010) iWork 9.0.4 (for Mac OS X 10.5.6 "Leopard" or newer; released August 26, 2010) iWork 9.1 (for Mac OS X 10.6.6 "Snow Leopard" or newer; released July 20, 2011) iWork 9.3 (for Mac OS X 10.7.4 "Lion" or newer; released December 4, 2012) The Mac App Store version of iWork was updated on October 15, 2015 for 10.10 "Yosemite" or newer. It is the final release to support 10.10 "Yosemite" and 10.11 "El Capitan". Keynote 6.6, Pages 5.6 and Numbers 3.6 are included. iWork received a major update again on March 28, 2019 with Keynote 9.0, Pages 8.0 and Numbers 6.0. == Components == === Common components === Products in the iWork suite share a number of components, largely as a result of sharing underlying code from the Cocoa and similar shared application programming interfaces (APIs). Among these are the well known universal multilingual spell checker, which can also be found in products like Safari and Mail. Grammar checking, find and replace, style and color pickers are similar examples of design features found throughout the Apple application space. Moreover, the applications

  Read more →
• 

  GNOWSYS

  GNOWSYS (Gnowledge Networking and Organizing system) is a specification for a generic distributed network based memory/knowledge management. It is developed as an application for developing and maintaining semantic web content. It is written in Python. It is implemented as a Django app. The GNOWSYS project was launched by Nagarjuna G. in 2001, while he was working at Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education (HBCSE). The memory of GNOWSYS is designed as a node-oriented space. A node is described by other nodes to which it has links. The nodes are organized and processed according to a complex data structure called the neighborhood. == Applications == The application can be used for web-based knowledge representation and content management projects, for developing structured knowledge bases, as a collaborative authoring tool, suitable for making electronic glossaries, dictionaries and encyclopedias, for managing large web sites or links, developing an online catalogue for a library of any thing including books, to make ontologies, classifying and networking any objects, etc. This tool is also intended to be used for an on-line tutoring system with dependency management between various concepts or software packages. For example, the dependency relations between Debian packages have been represented by the gnowledge portal Archived 2018-05-14 at the Wayback Machine. == Component Classes == The kernel is designed to provide support to persistently store highly granular nodes of knowledge representation like terms, predicates and very complex propositional systems like arguments, rules, axiomatic systems, loosely held paragraphs, and more complex structured and consistent compositions. All the component classes in GNOWSYS are classified according to complexity into three groups, where the first two groups are used to express all possible well formed formulae permissible in a first order logic. === Terms === ‘Object’, ‘Object Type’ for declarative knowledge, ‘Event’, ‘Event Type’, for temporal objects, and ‘Meta Types’ for expressing upper ontology. The objects in this group are essentially any thing about which the knowledge engineer intends to express and store in the knowledge base, i.e., they are the objects of discourse. The instances of these component classes can be stored with or without expressing ‘instance of’ or ‘sub-class of’ relations among them. === Predicates === This group consists of ‘Relation’, and ‘Relation Type’ for expressing declarative knowledge, and ‘Function’ and ‘Function Type’ for expressing procedural knowledge. This group is to express qualitative and quantitative relations among the various instances stored in the knowledge base. While instantiating the predicates can be characterized by their logical properties of relations, quantifiers and cardinality as monadic predicates of these predicate objects. === Structures === ‘System’, ‘Encapsulated Class’, ‘Program’, and ‘Process’, are other base classes for complex structures, which can be combined iteratively to produce more complex systems. The component class ‘System’ is to store in the knowledge base a set of propositions composed into ontologies, axiomatic systems, complex systems like say a human body, an artifact like a vehicle etc., with or without consistency check. An ‘Encapsulated Class’ is to com- pose declarative and behavioural objects in a flexible way to build classes. A ‘Program’ is not only to store the logic of any complete program or a component class, composed from the already available behavioural instances in the knowledge base with built-in connectives (conditions, and loops), but also execute them as web services. A ‘Process’ is to structure temporal objects with sequence, concurrency, synchronous or asynchronous specifications. Every node in the database keeps the neighbourhood information, such as its super-class, sub-class, instance-of, and other relations, in which the object has a role, in the form of predicates. This feature makes computation of drawing graphs and inferences, on the one hand, and dependency and navigation paths on the other hand very easy. All the data and metadata is indexed in a central catalogue making query and locating resources efficient.

  Read more →
• 

  Cognitive tutor

  A cognitive tutor is a particular kind of intelligent tutoring system that utilizes a cognitive model to provide feedback to students as they are working through problems. This feedback will immediately inform students of the correctness, or incorrectness, of their actions in the tutor interface; however, cognitive tutors also have the ability to provide context-sensitive hints and instruction to guide students towards reasonable next steps. == Introduction == The name of Cognitive Tutor now usually refers to a particular type of intelligent tutoring system produced by Carnegie Learning for high school mathematics based on John Anderson's ACT-R theory of human cognition. However, cognitive tutors were originally developed to test ACT-R theory for research purposes since the early 1980s and they are developed also for other areas and subjects such as computer programming and science. Cognitive Tutors can be implemented into classrooms as a part of blended learning that combines textbook and software activities. The Cognitive Tutor programs utilize cognitive model and are based on model tracing and knowledge tracing. Model tracing means that the cognitive tutor checks every action performed by students such as entering a value or clicking a button, while knowledge tracing is used to calculate the required skills students learned by measuring them on a bar chart called Skillometer. Model tracing and knowledge tracing are essentially used to monitor students' learning progress, guide students to correct path to problem solving, and provide feedback. The Institute of Education Sciences published several reports regarding the effectiveness of Carnegie Cognitive Tutor. A 2013 report concluded that Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor was found to have mixed effects on mathematics achievement for high school students. The report identified 27 studies that investigate the effectiveness of Cognitive Tutor, and the conclusion is based on 6 studies that meet What Works Clearinghouse standards. Among the 6 studies included, 5 of them show intermediate to significant positive effect, while 1 study shows statistically significant negative effect. Another report published by Institute of Education Sciences in 2009 found that Cognitive Tutor Algebra I to have potentially positive effects on math achievement based on only 1 study out of 14 studies that meets What Works Clearinghouse standards. It should be understood that What Works Clearinghouse standards call for relatively large numbers of participants, true random assignments to groups, and for a control group receiving either no treatment or a different treatment. Such experimental conditions are difficult to meet in schools, and thus only a small percentage of studies in education meet the standards of this clearinghouse, even though they may still be of value. == Theoretical foundations == === Four-component architecture === Intelligent tutoring systems (ITS) have a four-component architecture: a domain model, a student model, a tutoring model and an interface component. The domain model contains the rules, concepts, and knowledge related to the domain to be learned. It helps to evaluate students' performance and detect students' errors by setting a standard of domain expertise. The student model, the central component of an ITS, is expected to contain knowledge about the students: their cognitive and affective states, and their progress as they learn. The function of the student model is threefold: to gather data from and about the learner, to represent the learner's knowledge and learning process, and to perform diagnostics of a student's knowledge and select optimal pedagogical strategies. The tutoring model uses the data gained from the domain model and student model to make decisions about tutoring strategies such as whether or not to intervene, or when and how to intervene. Functions of the tutoring model include instruction delivery and content planning. The interface component reflects the decisions made by the tutoring model in different forms such as Socratic dialogs, feedback and hints. Students interact with the tutor through the learning interface, also known as communication. The interface provides domain knowledge elements. === Cognitive model === A cognitive model replicates the domain knowledge and skills comparable to that of a human expert or an advanced student of the domain. A cognitive model enables intelligent tutoring systems to respond to problem-solving situations in a way similar to a human tutor. A tutoring system adopting a cognitive model is called a cognitive tutor. A cognitive model is an expert system that generates a multitude of solutions to the problems presented to students. The cognitive model is used to trace each student's solution through complex alternative solution paths, enabling the tutor to provide step-by-step feedback and advice, and to maintain a targeted model of the student's knowledge based on student performance. === Cognitive Tutors === Cognitive Tutors provide step-by-step guidance as a learner develops a complex problem-solving skill through practice. Typically, cognitive tutors provide such forms of support as: (a) a problem-solving environment that is designed rich and "thinking visible"; (b) step-by-step feedback on student performance; (c) feedback messages specific to errors; (d) context-specific next-step hints at student's request, and (e) individualized problem selection. Cognitive Tutors accomplish two of the principal tasks characteristic of human tutoring: (1) monitors the student's performance and providing context-specific individual instruction, and (2) monitors the student's learning and selects appropriate problem-solving activities. Both cognitive model and two underlying algorithms, model tracing and knowledge tracing, are used to monitor the student's learning. In model tracing, the cognitive tutor uses the cognitive model in complex problems to follow the student's individual path and provide prompt accuracy feedback and context-specific advice. In knowledge tracing, the cognitive tutor uses a Bayesian Knowledge Tracing method of evaluating the student's knowledge and uses this student model to select appropriate problems for each student. === Cognitive architecture === Cognitive tutor development is guided by ACT-R cognitive architecture, which specifies the underlying framework developing the cognitive model or expert component of a cognitive tutor. ACT-R, a member of the ACT family, is the most recent cognitive architecture, devoted primarily to modelling human behavior. ACT-R includes a declarative memory of factual knowledge and a procedural memory of production rules. The architecture functions by matching productions on perceptions and facts, mediated by the real-valued activation levels of objects, and executing them to affect the environment or alter declarative memory. ACT-R has been used to model psychological aspects such as memory, attention, reasoning, problem solving, and language processing. == Application and utilization == The first real world applications of cognitive tutors were in the 1980s and involved a geometry proof tutor used by high school students and a LISP programming tutor used by college students in a mini course in introductory programming course at Carnegie Mellon University. Since then, cognitive tutors have been used in a variety of scenarios, with a few organizations developing their own cognitive tutor programs. These programs have been used with students spanning elementary school through university level, though primarily in the subject areas of Computer Programming, Mathematics, and Science. One of the first organizations to develop a system for use within the school system was the PACT Center at Carnegie Mellon University. Their aim was to "...develop systems that provide individualized assistance to students as they work on challenging real-world problems in complex domains such as computer programming, algebra and geometry". PACT's most successful product was the Cognitive Tutor Algebra course. Originally created in the early 1990s, this course was in use in 75 schools through the U.S. by 1999, and then its spin-off company, Carnegie Learning, now offers tutors to thousands of schools in the U.S. The Carnegie Mellon Cognitive Tutor has been shown to raise students' math test scores in high school and middle-school classrooms, and their Algebra course was designated one of five exemplary curricula for K-12 mathematics educated by the US Department of Education. There were several research projects conducted by the PACT Center to utilize Cognitive tutor for courses in Excel and to develop an intelligent tutoring system for algebra expression writing, called Ms. Lindquist. Further, in 2005, Carnegie Learning released Bridge to Algebra, a product intended for middle schools that was piloted in over 100 schools. Cognitive tutoring software is continuing to be used.

  Read more →
• 

  Conflict resolution strategy

  Conflict resolution strategies are used in production systems in artificial intelligence, such as in rule-based expert systems, to help in choosing which production rule to fire. The need for such a strategy arises when the conditions of two or more rules are satisfied by the currently known facts. == Categories == Conflict resolution strategies fall into several main categories. They each have advantages which form their rationales. Specificity - If all of the conditions of two or more rules are satisfied, choose the rule according to how specific its conditions are. It is possible to favor either the more general or the more specific case. The most specific may be identified roughly as the one having the greatest number of preconditions. This usefully catches exceptions and other special cases before firing the more general (default) rules. Recency - When two or more rules could be chosen, favor the one that matches the most recently added facts, as these are most likely to describe the current situation. Not previously used - If a rule's conditions are satisfied, but previously the same rule has been satisfied by the same facts, ignore the rule. This helps to prevent the system from entering infinite loops. Order - Pick the first applicable rule in order of presentation. This is the strategy that Prolog interpreters use by default, but any strategy may be implemented by building suitable rules in a Prolog system. Arbitrary choice - Pick a rule at random. This has the merit of being simple to compute.

  Read more →
• 

  Actor-critic algorithm

  The actor-critic algorithm (AC) is a family of reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms that combine policy-based RL algorithms such as policy gradient methods, and value-based RL algorithms such as value iteration, Q-learning, SARSA, and TD learning. An AC algorithm consists of two main components: an "actor" that determines which actions to take according to a policy function, and a "critic" that evaluates those actions according to a value function. Some AC algorithms are on-policy, some are off-policy. Some apply to either continuous or discrete action spaces. Some work in both cases. == Overview == The actor-critic methods can be understood as an improvement over pure policy gradient methods like REINFORCE via introducing a baseline. === Actor === The actor uses a policy function π ( a | s ) {\displaystyle \pi (a|s)} , while the critic estimates either the value function V ( s ) {\displaystyle V(s)} , the action-value Q-function Q ( s , a ) , {\displaystyle Q(s,a),} the advantage function A ( s , a ) {\displaystyle A(s,a)} , or any combination thereof. The actor is a parameterized function π θ {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }} , where θ {\displaystyle \theta } are the parameters of the actor. The actor takes as argument the state of the environment s {\displaystyle s} and produces a probability distribution π θ ( ⋅ | s ) {\displaystyle \pi _{\theta }(\cdot |s)} . If the action space is discrete, then ∑ a π θ ( a | s ) = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)=1} . If the action space is continuous, then ∫ a π θ ( a | s ) d a = 1 {\displaystyle \int _{a}\pi _{\theta }(a|s)da=1} . The goal of policy optimization is to improve the actor. That is, to find some θ {\displaystyle \theta } that maximizes the expected episodic reward J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} : J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ t = 0 T γ t r t ] {\displaystyle J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{t=0}^{T}\gamma ^{t}r_{t}\right]} where γ {\displaystyle \gamma } is the discount factor, r t {\displaystyle r_{t}} is the reward at step t {\displaystyle t} , and T {\displaystyle T} is the time-horizon (which can be infinite). The goal of policy gradient method is to optimize J ( θ ) {\displaystyle J(\theta )} by gradient ascent on the policy gradient ∇ J ( θ ) {\displaystyle \nabla J(\theta )} . As detailed on the policy gradient method page, there are many unbiased estimators of the policy gradient: ∇ θ J ( θ ) = E π θ [ ∑ 0 ≤ j ≤ T ∇ θ ln ⁡ π θ ( A j | S j ) ⋅ Ψ j | S 0 = s 0 ] {\displaystyle \nabla _{\theta }J(\theta )=\mathbb {E} _{\pi _{\theta }}\left[\sum _{0\leq j\leq T}\nabla _{\theta }\ln \pi _{\theta }(A_{j}|S_{j})\cdot \Psi _{j}{\Big |}S_{0}=s_{0}\right]} where Ψ j {\textstyle \Psi _{j}} is a linear sum of the following: ∑ 0 ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i R i ) {\textstyle \sum _{0\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i}R_{i})} . γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})} : the REINFORCE algorithm. γ j ∑ j ≤ i ≤ T ( γ i − j R i ) − b ( S j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{j\leq i\leq T}(\gamma ^{i-j}R_{i})-b(S_{j})} : the REINFORCE with baseline algorithm. Here b {\displaystyle b} is an arbitrary function. γ j ( R j + γ V π θ ( S j + 1 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+1})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(1) learning. γ j Q π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}Q^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} . γ j A π θ ( S j , A j ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}A^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j},A_{j})} : Advantage Actor-Critic (A2C). γ j ( R j + γ R j + 1 + γ 2 V π θ ( S j + 2 ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(R_{j}+\gamma R_{j+1}+\gamma ^{2}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+2})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(2) learning. γ j ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(n) learning. γ j ∑ n = 1 ∞ λ n − 1 1 − λ ⋅ ( ∑ k = 0 n − 1 γ k R j + k + γ n V π θ ( S j + n ) − V π θ ( S j ) ) {\textstyle \gamma ^{j}\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {\lambda ^{n-1}}{1-\lambda }}\cdot \left(\sum _{k=0}^{n-1}\gamma ^{k}R_{j+k}+\gamma ^{n}V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j+n})-V^{\pi _{\theta }}(S_{j})\right)} : TD(λ) learning, also known as GAE (generalized advantage estimate). This is obtained by an exponentially decaying sum of the TD(n) learning terms. === Critic === In the unbiased estimators given above, certain functions such as V π θ , Q π θ , A π θ {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }},Q^{\pi _{\theta }},A^{\pi _{\theta }}} appear. These are approximated by the critic. Since these functions all depend on the actor, the critic must learn alongside the actor. The critic is learned by value-based RL algorithms. For example, if the critic is estimating the state-value function V π θ ( s ) {\displaystyle V^{\pi _{\theta }}(s)} , then it can be learned by any value function approximation method. Let the critic be a function approximator V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} with parameters ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } . The simplest example is TD(1) learning, which trains the critic to minimize the TD(1) error: δ i = R i + γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} The critic parameters are updated by gradient descent on the squared TD error: ϕ ← ϕ − α ∇ ϕ ( δ i ) 2 = ϕ + α δ i ∇ ϕ V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle \phi \leftarrow \phi -\alpha \nabla _{\phi }(\delta _{i})^{2}=\phi +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\phi }V_{\phi }(S_{i})} where α {\displaystyle \alpha } is the learning rate. Note that the gradient is taken with respect to the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(S_{i})} only, since the ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } in γ V ϕ ( S i + 1 ) {\displaystyle \gamma V_{\phi }(S_{i+1})} constitutes a moving target, and the gradient is not taken with respect to that. This is a common source of error in implementations that use automatic differentiation, and requires "stopping the gradient" at that point. Similarly, if the critic is estimating the action-value function Q π θ {\displaystyle Q^{\pi _{\theta }}} , then it can be learned by Q-learning or SARSA. In SARSA, the critic maintains an estimate of the Q-function, parameterized by ϕ {\displaystyle \phi } , denoted as Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} . The temporal difference error is then calculated as δ i = R i + γ Q θ ( S i + 1 , A i + 1 ) − Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \delta _{i}=R_{i}+\gamma Q_{\theta }(S_{i+1},A_{i+1})-Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} . The critic is then updated by θ ← θ + α δ i ∇ θ Q θ ( S i , A i ) {\displaystyle \theta \leftarrow \theta +\alpha \delta _{i}\nabla _{\theta }Q_{\theta }(S_{i},A_{i})} The advantage critic can be trained by training both a Q-function Q ϕ ( s , a ) {\displaystyle Q_{\phi }(s,a)} and a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then let A ϕ ( s , a ) = Q ϕ ( s , a ) − V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(s,a)=Q_{\phi }(s,a)-V_{\phi }(s)} . Although, it is more common to train just a state-value function V ϕ ( s ) {\displaystyle V_{\phi }(s)} , then estimate the advantage by A ϕ ( S i , A i ) ≈ ∑ j ∈ 0 : n − 1 γ j R i + j + γ n V ϕ ( S i + n ) − V ϕ ( S i ) {\displaystyle A_{\phi }(S_{i},A_{i})\approx \sum _{j\in 0:n-1}\gamma ^{j}R_{i+j}+\gamma ^{n}V_{\phi }(S_{i+n})-V_{\phi }(S_{i})} Here, n {\displaystyle n} is a positive integer. The higher n {\displaystyle n} is, the more lower is the bias in the advantage estimation, but at the price of higher variance. The Generalized Advantage Estimation (GAE) introduces a hyperparameter λ {\displaystyle \lambda } that smoothly interpolates between Monte Carlo returns ( λ = 1 {\displaystyle \lambda =1} , high variance, no bias) and 1-step TD learning ( λ = 0 {\displaystyle \lambda =0} , low variance, high bias). This hyperparameter can be adjusted to pick the optimal bias-variance trade-off in advantage estimation. It uses an exponentially decaying average of n-step returns with λ {\displaystyle \lambda } being the decay strength. == Variants == Asynchronous Advantage Actor-Critic (A3C): Parallel and asynchronous version of A2C. Soft Actor-Critic (SAC): Incorporates entropy maximization for improved exploration. Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG): Specialized for continuous action spaces.

  Read more →
• 

  Ebert test

  The Ebert test gauges whether a computer-based synthesized voice can tell a joke with sufficient skill to cause people to laugh. It was proposed by film critic Roger Ebert at the 2011 TED conference as a challenge to software developers to have a computerized voice master the inflections, delivery, timing, and intonations of human speech. The test is similar to the Turing test proposed by Alan Turing in 1950 as a way to gauge a computer's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior by generating performance indistinguishable from a human being. If the computer can successfully tell a joke, and do the timing and delivery as well as Henny Youngman, then that's the voice I want. Ebert lost his voice in 2006 after undergoing surgery to treat thyroid cancer. He employed a Scottish company called CereProc, which custom-tailors text-to-speech software for voiceless customers who record their voices at length before losing them, and mined tapes and DVD commentaries featuring Ebert to create a voice that sounded more like his own voice. He first publicly used the voice they devised for him in his March 2, 2010, appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show. The audience of Ebert's 2011 TED talk about joke delivery by synthesized voices erupted with laughter when a synthesized voice delivered the following joke: "A guy goes into a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist says, 'You’re crazy.' The guy says, 'I want a second opinion.' The psychiatrist says, 'All right, you’re ugly, too.'"

  Read more →
• 

  Retrieval-based Voice Conversion

  Retrieval-based Voice Conversion (RVC) is an open source voice conversion AI algorithm that enables realistic speech-to-speech transformations, accurately preserving the intonation and audio characteristics of the original speaker. == Overview == In contrast to text-to-speech systems such as ElevenLabs, RVC differs by providing speech-to-speech outputs instead. It maintains the modulation, timbre and vocal attributes of the original speaker, making it suitable for applications where emotional tone is crucial. The algorithm enables both pre-processed and real-time voice conversion with low latency. This real-time capability marks a significant advancement over previous AI voice conversion technologies, such as So-vits SVC. Its speed and accuracy have led many to note that its generated voices sound near-indistinguishable from "real life", provided that sufficient computational specifications and resources (e.g., a powerful GPU and ample RAM) are available when running it locally and that a high-quality voice model is used. == Technical foundation == Retrieval-based Voice Conversion (RVC) utilizes a hybrid approach that integrates feature extraction with retrieval-based synthesis. Instead of directly mapping source speaker features to the target speaker using statistical models, RVC retrieves relevant segments from a target speech database, aiming to enhance the naturalness and speaker fidelity of the converted speech. At a high level, the RVC system typically comprises three main components: (1) a content feature extractor, such as a phonetic posteriorgram (PPG) encoder or self-supervised models like HuBERT; (2) a vector retrieval module that searches a target voice database for the most similar speech units; and (3) a vocoder or neural decoder that synthesizes waveform output from the retrieved representations. The retrieval-based paradigm aims to mitigate the oversmoothing effect commonly observed in fully neural sequence-to-sequence models, potentially leading to more expressive and natural-sounding speech. Furthermore, with the incorporation of high-dimensional embeddings and k-nearest-neighbor search algorithms, the model can perform efficient matching across large-scale databases without significant computational overhead. Recent RVC frameworks have incorporated adversarial learning strategies and GAN-based vocoders, such as HiFi-GAN, to enhance synthesis quality. These integrations have been shown to produce clearer harmonics and reduce reconstruction errors. == Research developments == Research on RVC has recently explored the use of self-supervised learning (SSL) encoders such as wav2vec 2.0 and HuBERT to replace hand-engineered features like MFCCs. These encoders improve content preservation, especially when source and target speakers have dissimilar speaking styles or accents. Moreover, modern RVC models leverage vector quantization methods to discretize the acoustic space, improving both synthesis accuracy and generalization across unseen speakers. For example, retrieval-augmented VQ models can condition the synthesis stage on quantized speech tokens, which enhances controllability and style transfer. Despite its strengths, RVC still faces limitations related to database coverage, especially in real-time or few-shot settings. Inadequate diversity in the target voice corpus may lead to suboptimal retrieval or unnatural prosody. These advances demonstrate the viability of RVC as a strong alternative to conventional deep learning VC systems, balancing both flexibility and efficiency in diverse voice synthesis applications. == Training process == The training pipeline for retrieval-based voice conversion typically includes a preprocessing step where the target speaker's dataset is segmented and normalized. A pitch extractor such as librosa or DDSP-DDC may be used to obtain fundamental frequency (F0) features. During training, the model learns to map content features from the source speaker to the acoustic representation of the target speaker while maintaining pitch and prosody. The training objective often combines reconstruction loss with feature consistency loss across intermediate layers, and may incorporate cycle consistency loss to preserve speaker identity. Fine-tuning on small datasets is feasible due to the use of pre-trained models, particularly for the SSL encoder and content extractor components. This approach allows transfer learning to be applied effectively, enabling the model to converge faster and generalize better to unseen inputs. Most open implementations support batch training, gradient accumulation, and mixed-precision acceleration (e.g., FP16), especially when utilizing NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPUs. == Real-time deployment == RVC systems can be deployed in real-time scenarios through WebUI interfaces and streaming audio frameworks. Optimizations include converting the inference graph to ONNX or TensorRT formats, reducing latency. Audio buffers are typically processed in chunks of 0.2–0.5 seconds to ensure minimal delay and seamless conversion. Cross-platform compatibility with tools such as OBS Studio and Voicemeeter enables integration into live streaming, video production, or virtual avatar environments. == Applications and concerns == The technology enables voice changing and mimicry, allowing users to create accurate models of others using only a negligible amount of minutes of clear audio samples. These voice models can be saved as .pth (PyTorch) files. While this capability facilitates numerous creative applications, it has also raised concerns about potential misuse as deepfake software for identity theft and malicious impersonation through voice calls. == Ethical and legal considerations == As with other deep generative models, the rise of RVC technology has led to increasing debate about copyright, consent, and authorship. While some jurisdictions may allow parody or fair use in creative contexts, impersonating living individuals without permission may infringe upon privacy and likeness rights. As a result, some platforms have begun issuing takedown notices against AI-generated voice content that closely mimics celebrities or musicians. === In pop culture === RVC inference has been used to create realistic depictions of song covers, such as replacing original vocals with characters like Twilight Sparkle and Mordecai to have them sing duets of popular music like "Airplanes" and "Somebody That I Used to Know." These AI-generated covers, which can sound strikingly similar to the voice imitated, have gained popularity on platforms like YouTube as humorous memes.

  Read more →
• 

  Modular Audio Recognition Framework

  Modular Audio Recognition Framework (MARF) is an open-source research platform and a collection of voice, sound, speech, text and natural language processing (NLP) algorithms written in Java and arranged into a modular and extensible framework that attempts to facilitate addition of new algorithms. MARF may act as a library in applications or be used as a source for learning and extension. A few example applications are provided to show how to use the framework. There is also a detailed manual and the API reference in the javadoc format as the project tends to be well documented. MARF, its applications, and the corresponding source code and documentation are released under the BSD-style license.

  Read more →
• 

  ShowScoop

  ShowScoop is a website and mobile app platform on which users can rate and review artists, concerts, and music festivals that they have seen/attended. The reviews and ratings are designed to be informative of how well such performances are live. This helps concert-goers decide which live music events they want to attend. == History == ShowScoop was founded in August 2012 by Micah Smurthwaite and is based out of San Diego, CA. In February 2013, ShowScoop launched its mobile app at the SF Music Tech Summit. The application is currently available on the iPhone, with plans to expand into the Android market in the future. == Services == ShowScoop uses crowdsourcing to provide accurate ratings of live concert experiences. In addition to viewing ratings, users are encouraged to rate and review concerts they have attended. The ShowScoop database includes nearly one million artists and over 2.5 million live music events. ShowScoop users can rate artists on four aspects of the performance: stage presence, crowd interaction, sound quality, and visual effects. The rating system uses an ascending scale from one to five in each of the aspects, with five being the highest score. In addition to the quantitative ratings, ShowScoop users are also free to write qualitative reviews in a provided comment section. This allows users to explain their ratings and add further insight or opinion. ShowScoop incorporates several facets of social media into its services. Users can create a user profile to share limited personal information and store their ratings and reviews. Users are also given the option of sharing their evaluations with their social networks on Facebook and Twitter. Users can "like" reviews, follow artists, and follow other ShowScoop users. The mobile app allows users to take photos, apply filters, and share the final image in conjunction with reviews and through Instagram. == Road Crew == ShowScoop's "Road Crew" is a group made up of top contributors within the ShowScoop community. The Road Crew assists in curating artist pages, assuring information quality and accuracy. In return, members of the Road Crew are given incentives, including free tickets to concerts and personal invitations to exclusive shows. Applicants to the Road Crew are judged on the number and quality of their reviews, the photos and videos they have posted, and their general engagement with the ShowScoop community in following and liking users and reviews.

  Read more →
• 

  STUDENT

  STUDENT is an early artificial intelligence program that solves algebra word problems. It is written in Lisp by Daniel G. Bobrow as his PhD thesis in 1964 (Bobrow 1964). It was designed to read and solve the kind of word problems found in high school algebra books. The program is often cited as an early accomplishment of AI in natural language processing. == Technical description == Within Project MAC at MIT, the STUDENT system was an early example of a question answering software, which uniquely involved natural language processing and symbolic programming. Other early attempts for solving algebra story problems were realized with 1960s hardware and software as well: for example, the Philips, Baseball and Synthex systems. STUDENT accepts an algebra story written in the English language as input, and generates a number as output. This is realized with a layered pipeline that consists of heuristics for pattern transformation. At first, sentences in English are converted into kernel sentences, which each contain a single piece of information. Next, the kernel sentences are converted into mathematical expressions. The knowledge base that supports the transformation contains 52 facts. STUDENT uses a rule-based system with logic inference. The rules are pre-programmed by the software developer and are able to parse natural language. More powerful techniques for natural language processing, such as machine learning, came into use later as hardware grew more capable, and gained popularity over simpler rule-based systems.

  Read more →
• 

  Anthropic–United States Department of Defense dispute

  Since January 2026, the United States Department of Defense has conflicted with the artificial intelligence company Anthropic over the use of its products for military purposes and mass domestic surveillance. == Background == === Artificial intelligence in the U.S. military === The United States Department of Defense began developing lethal autonomous weapons as early as the Reagan administration. The Department of Defense established a policy on the use of artificial intelligence in 2012, Directive 3000.09. Efforts to utilize artificial intelligence intensified under the term of secretary Ash Carter. The Department of Defense's use of artificial intelligence for Project Maven prompted concerns within Google in 2018, leading to protests and mass resignations. === Anthropic in the second Trump administration === In Donald Trump's second presidency, Anthropic publicly disagreed with the administration's policies and initiatives. In January 2025, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei criticized the artificial intelligence investment project Stargate as "chaotic" and opposed Trump's rescission of president Joe Biden's Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence, but noted that Anthropic had held discussions with Trump officials about artificial intelligence policy. Amid discussions over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Anthropic privately lobbied for Congress to vote against a bill preventing states from regulating artificial intelligence and expressed opposition to an artificial intelligence agreement signed among Gulf states in Trump's visit to the Middle East in May. According to Semafor, Trump officials chastised Anthropic's hiring of several officials involved in the Biden administration, including Elizabeth Kelly, the former director of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute; Tarun Chhabra, the coordinator for technology and national security in the National Security Council; and Ben Buchanan, Biden's advisor for artificial intelligence. The following month, Amodei wrote an op-ed in The New York Times describing the artificial intelligence regulation bill, then tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as "far too blunt an instrument". Prior to the dispute, the Trump administration had integrated Anthropic's services. By November 2024, Anthropic had already partnered with Palantir and Amazon Web Services, companies that offered services with FedRAMP authorization. In the Biden administration, Anthropic had reached an agreement with the AI Safety Institute and had participated in a nuclear information safety evaluation. The Department of Homeland Security authorized its workers to use commercial artificial intelligence systems, including Anthropic's Claude, until May 2025. Through its interoperability with Palantir, a company heavily involved in data analysis and analytics at the Department of Defense, Anthropic's technology achieved relatively widespread usage in the U.S. military. The following month, Anthropic announced that it would allow national security customers to use Claude Gov. Anthropic's orthogonal usage policy to the surveillance systems implemented at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement led to a conflict between Anthropic and the Trump administration by September. That month, Amodei criticized Trump's approach to export restrictions on semiconductors. Anthropic's strategy has mirrored Amodei's views towards Trump; in a Facebook post ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Amodei urged his associates to vote for vice president Kamala Harris over Trump, describing him as a "feudal warlord". As the Trump administration targeted law firms, Amodei cut ties with the firms Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Latham & Watkins, which reached agreements with the Trump administration to avoid punishment. David Sacks, Trump's advisor for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, said on All-In (2020–present) that Anthropic was among several "AI doomers" that support regulation he saw as overly restrictive. According to The Wall Street Journal, officials close to Sacks examined whether Anthropic's Claude was a "woke AI"; in July, Trump signed an executive order "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government ". Sacks viewed Amodei's decision to attend the World Economic Forum over Trump's second inauguration; his hiring of Biden officials; and Anthropic's association with the philanthropic initiative Open Philanthropy as evidence that Anthropic would not support Trump's agenda. In October 2025, Sacks stated that Anthropic was "running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering." That month, Amodei published a blog post rebuffing "inaccurate claims" from the Trump administration on Anthropic's policies, intensifying the dispute. Amodei's statement included views explicitly espoused by vice president JD Vance. In December, Amodei met with Trump officials and several senators in an effort to improve Anthropic's relationship with the Trump administration. == Dispute == In December 2025, secretary of defense Pete Hegseth announced GenAI.mil, an artificial intelligence platform for the Department of Defense. The department initially contracted Google Gemini for the platform, then OpenAI's ChatGPT. The following month, Hegseth announced that the Department of Defense would additionally contract xAI's Grok for use in the military, decrying "woke AI." In January 2026, Semafor reported that the Department of Defense had conflicted with Anthropic over its policies on lethal military force and that Hegseth's comment on woke AI was a reference to Anthropic. According to Reuters, Anthropic representatives opposed the use of the company's products for surveillance or to develop lethal autonomous weapons. The dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense resulted in the termination of a contract worth an estimated US$200 million. In February 2026, Emil Michael, the under secretary of defense for research and engineering, stated that the Department of Defense would expand access to commercial artificial intelligence systems, including Anthropic's Claude, to unclassified and classified domains. That month, Axios reported that the Department of Defense had used Claude in the United States intervention in Venezuela. Anthropic told Axios that it would reassess its partnership with the Department of Defense after the revelations. After Anthropic refused to agree to allow the Department of Defense to use Claude for "all lawful purposes," the department threatened to cancel its contracts with the company. Hegseth additionally moved to label Anthropic a "supply chain risk," which would have forced military contractors to cut ties with Anthropic. A federal judge blocked this designation, describing it as punitive. Michael told reporters that Anthropic should "cross the Rubicon" and allow the Department of Defense to dictate the terms of how its technology is used. The position of the Department of Defense, and its tactics during the dispute, were widely criticized on grounds including violating the principles of rule-of-law, market independence and national security. == Impact == The dispute caused 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm associated with Donald Trump Jr., to abandon an investment in Anthropic worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Following the government's actions against Anthropic, OpenAI "rushed", hours before the US started the 2026 Iran war, to get a deal without the constraints that Anthropic had sought. == Lawsuits == In March 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin granted a preliminary injunction against the government. Lin wrote: The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. (...) At bottom, Anthropic has shown that these broad punitive measures were likely unlawful and that it is suffering irreparable harm from them. Numerous amici have also described wide-ranging harm to the public interest, including the chilling of open discussion about important topics in AI safety. In April 2026, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a per curiam order denied Anthropic's motion to lift the designation. The April order is not final. The court's order said lifting the designation "would force the United States military to prolong its dealings with an unwanted vendor of critical AI services in the middle of a significant ongoing military conflict". According to Wired, "Several experts in government contracting and corporate rights" said "Anthropic has a strong case against the government, but the courts sometimes refuse to overrule the White House on matters related to national security."

  Read more →
• 

  Anthropic–United States Department of Defense dispute

  Since January 2026, the United States Department of Defense has conflicted with the artificial intelligence company Anthropic over the use of its products for military purposes and mass domestic surveillance. == Background == === Artificial intelligence in the U.S. military === The United States Department of Defense began developing lethal autonomous weapons as early as the Reagan administration. The Department of Defense established a policy on the use of artificial intelligence in 2012, Directive 3000.09. Efforts to utilize artificial intelligence intensified under the term of secretary Ash Carter. The Department of Defense's use of artificial intelligence for Project Maven prompted concerns within Google in 2018, leading to protests and mass resignations. === Anthropic in the second Trump administration === In Donald Trump's second presidency, Anthropic publicly disagreed with the administration's policies and initiatives. In January 2025, Anthropic chief executive Dario Amodei criticized the artificial intelligence investment project Stargate as "chaotic" and opposed Trump's rescission of president Joe Biden's Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence, but noted that Anthropic had held discussions with Trump officials about artificial intelligence policy. Amid discussions over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Anthropic privately lobbied for Congress to vote against a bill preventing states from regulating artificial intelligence and expressed opposition to an artificial intelligence agreement signed among Gulf states in Trump's visit to the Middle East in May. According to Semafor, Trump officials chastised Anthropic's hiring of several officials involved in the Biden administration, including Elizabeth Kelly, the former director of the Artificial Intelligence Safety Institute; Tarun Chhabra, the coordinator for technology and national security in the National Security Council; and Ben Buchanan, Biden's advisor for artificial intelligence. The following month, Amodei wrote an op-ed in The New York Times describing the artificial intelligence regulation bill, then tied to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as "far too blunt an instrument". Prior to the dispute, the Trump administration had integrated Anthropic's services. By November 2024, Anthropic had already partnered with Palantir and Amazon Web Services, companies that offered services with FedRAMP authorization. In the Biden administration, Anthropic had reached an agreement with the AI Safety Institute and had participated in a nuclear information safety evaluation. The Department of Homeland Security authorized its workers to use commercial artificial intelligence systems, including Anthropic's Claude, until May 2025. Through its interoperability with Palantir, a company heavily involved in data analysis and analytics at the Department of Defense, Anthropic's technology achieved relatively widespread usage in the U.S. military. The following month, Anthropic announced that it would allow national security customers to use Claude Gov. Anthropic's orthogonal usage policy to the surveillance systems implemented at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement led to a conflict between Anthropic and the Trump administration by September. That month, Amodei criticized Trump's approach to export restrictions on semiconductors. Anthropic's strategy has mirrored Amodei's views towards Trump; in a Facebook post ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Amodei urged his associates to vote for vice president Kamala Harris over Trump, describing him as a "feudal warlord". As the Trump administration targeted law firms, Amodei cut ties with the firms Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom and Latham & Watkins, which reached agreements with the Trump administration to avoid punishment. David Sacks, Trump's advisor for artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, said on All-In (2020–present) that Anthropic was among several "AI doomers" that support regulation he saw as overly restrictive. According to The Wall Street Journal, officials close to Sacks examined whether Anthropic's Claude was a "woke AI"; in July, Trump signed an executive order "Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government ". Sacks viewed Amodei's decision to attend the World Economic Forum over Trump's second inauguration; his hiring of Biden officials; and Anthropic's association with the philanthropic initiative Open Philanthropy as evidence that Anthropic would not support Trump's agenda. In October 2025, Sacks stated that Anthropic was "running a sophisticated regulatory capture strategy based on fear-mongering." That month, Amodei published a blog post rebuffing "inaccurate claims" from the Trump administration on Anthropic's policies, intensifying the dispute. Amodei's statement included views explicitly espoused by vice president JD Vance. In December, Amodei met with Trump officials and several senators in an effort to improve Anthropic's relationship with the Trump administration. == Dispute == In December 2025, secretary of defense Pete Hegseth announced GenAI.mil, an artificial intelligence platform for the Department of Defense. The department initially contracted Google Gemini for the platform, then OpenAI's ChatGPT. The following month, Hegseth announced that the Department of Defense would additionally contract xAI's Grok for use in the military, decrying "woke AI." In January 2026, Semafor reported that the Department of Defense had conflicted with Anthropic over its policies on lethal military force and that Hegseth's comment on woke AI was a reference to Anthropic. According to Reuters, Anthropic representatives opposed the use of the company's products for surveillance or to develop lethal autonomous weapons. The dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense resulted in the termination of a contract worth an estimated US$200 million. In February 2026, Emil Michael, the under secretary of defense for research and engineering, stated that the Department of Defense would expand access to commercial artificial intelligence systems, including Anthropic's Claude, to unclassified and classified domains. That month, Axios reported that the Department of Defense had used Claude in the United States intervention in Venezuela. Anthropic told Axios that it would reassess its partnership with the Department of Defense after the revelations. After Anthropic refused to agree to allow the Department of Defense to use Claude for "all lawful purposes," the department threatened to cancel its contracts with the company. Hegseth additionally moved to label Anthropic a "supply chain risk," which would have forced military contractors to cut ties with Anthropic. A federal judge blocked this designation, describing it as punitive. Michael told reporters that Anthropic should "cross the Rubicon" and allow the Department of Defense to dictate the terms of how its technology is used. The position of the Department of Defense, and its tactics during the dispute, were widely criticized on grounds including violating the principles of rule-of-law, market independence and national security. == Impact == The dispute caused 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm associated with Donald Trump Jr., to abandon an investment in Anthropic worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Following the government's actions against Anthropic, OpenAI "rushed", hours before the US started the 2026 Iran war, to get a deal without the constraints that Anthropic had sought. == Lawsuits == In March 2026, Judge Rita F. Lin granted a preliminary injunction against the government. Lin wrote: The Department of War’s records show that it designated Anthropic as a supply chain risk because of its “hostile manner through the press.” Punishing Anthropic for bringing public scrutiny to the government’s contracting position is classic illegal First Amendment retaliation. (...) At bottom, Anthropic has shown that these broad punitive measures were likely unlawful and that it is suffering irreparable harm from them. Numerous amici have also described wide-ranging harm to the public interest, including the chilling of open discussion about important topics in AI safety. In April 2026, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a per curiam order denied Anthropic's motion to lift the designation. The April order is not final. The court's order said lifting the designation "would force the United States military to prolong its dealings with an unwanted vendor of critical AI services in the middle of a significant ongoing military conflict". According to Wired, "Several experts in government contracting and corporate rights" said "Anthropic has a strong case against the government, but the courts sometimes refuse to overrule the White House on matters related to national security."

  Read more →
• 

  Computer security compromised by hardware failure

  Computer security compromised by hardware failure is a branch of computer security applied to hardware. The objective of computer security includes protection of information and property from theft, corruption, or natural disaster, while allowing the information and property to remain accessible and productive to its intended users. Such secret information could be retrieved by different ways. This article focus on the retrieval of data thanks to misused hardware or hardware failure. Hardware could be misused or exploited to get secret data. This article collects main types of attack that can lead to data theft. Computer security can be compromised by devices, such as keyboards, monitors or printers (thanks to electromagnetic or acoustic emanation for example) or by components of the computer, such as the memory, the network card or the processor (thanks to time or temperature analysis for example). == Devices == === Monitor === The monitor is the main device used to access data on a computer. It has been shown that monitors radiate or reflect data on their environment, potentially giving attackers access to information displayed on the monitor. ==== Electromagnetic emanations ==== Video display units radiate: narrowband harmonics of the digital clock signals; broadband harmonics of the various 'random' digital signals such as the video signal. Known as compromising emanations or TEMPEST radiation, a code word for a U.S. government programme aimed at attacking the problem, the electromagnetic broadcast of data has been a significant concern in sensitive computer applications. Eavesdroppers can reconstruct video screen content from radio frequency emanations. Each (radiated) harmonic of the video signal shows a remarkable resemblance to a broadcast TV signal. It is therefore possible to reconstruct the picture displayed on the video display unit from the radiated emission by means of a normal television receiver. If no preventive measures are taken, eavesdropping on a video display unit is possible at distances up to several hundreds of meters, using only a normal black-and-white TV receiver, a directional antenna and an antenna amplifier. It is even possible to pick up information from some types of video display units at a distance of over 1 kilometer. If more sophisticated receiving and decoding equipment is used, the maximum distance can be much greater. ==== Compromising reflections ==== What is displayed by the monitor is reflected on the environment. The time-varying diffuse reflections of the light emitted by a CRT monitor can be exploited to recover the original monitor image. This is an eavesdropping technique for spying at a distance on data that is displayed on an arbitrary computer screen, including the currently prevalent LCD monitors. The technique exploits reflections of the screen's optical emanations in various objects that one commonly finds close to the screen and uses those reflections to recover the original screen content. Such objects include eyeglasses, tea pots, spoons, plastic bottles, and even the eye of the user. This attack can be successfully mounted to spy on even small fonts using inexpensive, off-the-shelf equipment (less than 1500 dollars) from a distance of up to 10 meters. Relying on more expensive equipment allowed to conduct this attack from over 30 meters away, demonstrating that similar attacks are feasible from the other side of the street or from a close by building. Many objects that may be found at a usual workplace can be exploited to retrieve information on a computer's display by an outsider. Particularly good results were obtained from reflections in a user's eyeglasses or a tea pot located on the desk next to the screen. Reflections that stem from the eye of the user also provide good results. However, eyes are harder to spy on at a distance because they are fast-moving objects and require high exposure times. Using more expensive equipment with lower exposure times helps to remedy this problem. The reflections gathered from curved surfaces on close by objects indeed pose a substantial threat to the confidentiality of data displayed on the screen. Fully invalidating this threat without at the same time hiding the screen from the legitimate user seems difficult, without using curtains on the windows or similar forms of strong optical shielding. Most users, however, will not be aware of this risk and may not be willing to close the curtains on a nice day. The reflection of an object, a computer display, in a curved mirror creates a virtual image that is located behind the reflecting surface. For a flat mirror this virtual image has the same size and is located behind the mirror at the same distance as the original object. For curved mirrors, however, the situation is more complex. === Keyboard === ==== Electromagnetic emanations ==== Computer keyboards are often used to transmit confidential data such as passwords. Since they contain electronic components, keyboards emit electromagnetic waves. These emanations could reveal sensitive information such as keystrokes. Electromagnetic emanations have turned out to constitute a security threat to computer equipment. The figure below presents how a keystroke is retrieved and what material is necessary. The approach is to acquire the raw signal directly from the antenna and to process the entire captured electromagnetic spectrum. Thanks to this method, four different kinds of compromising electromagnetic emanations have been detected, generated by wired and wireless keyboards. These emissions lead to a full or a partial recovery of the keystrokes. The best practical attack fully recovered 95% of the keystrokes of a PS/2 keyboard at a distance up to 20 meters, even through walls. Because each keyboard has a specific fingerprint based on the clock frequency inconsistencies, it can determine the source keyboard of a compromising emanation, even if multiple keyboards from the same model are used at the same time. The four different kinds way of compromising electromagnetic emanations are described below. ===== The Falling Edge Transition Technique ===== When a key is pressed, released or held down, the keyboard sends a packet of information known as a scan code to the computer. The protocol used to transmit these scan codes is a bidirectional serial communication, based on four wires: Vcc (5 volts), ground, data and clock. Clock and data signals are identically generated. Hence, the compromising emanation detected is the combination of both signals. However, the edges of the data and the clock lines are not superposed. Thus, they can be easily separated to obtain independent signals. ===== The Generalized Transition Technique ===== The Falling Edge Transition attack is limited to a partial recovery of the keystrokes. This is a significant limitation. The GTT is a falling edge transition attack improved, which recover almost all keystrokes. Indeed, between two traces, there is exactly one data rising edge. If attackers are able to detect this transition, they can fully recover the keystrokes. ===== The Modulation Technique ===== Harmonics compromising electromagnetic emissions come from unintentional emanations such as radiations emitted by the clock, non-linear elements, crosstalk, ground pollution, etc. Determining theoretically the reasons of these compromising radiations is a very complex task. These harmonics correspond to a carrier of approximately 4 MHz which is very likely the internal clock of the micro-controller inside the keyboard. These harmonics are correlated with both clock and data signals, which describe modulated signals (in amplitude and frequency) and the full state of both clock and data signals. This means that the scan code can be completely recovered from these harmonics. ===== The Matrix Scan Technique ===== Keyboard manufacturers arrange the keys in a matrix. The keyboard controller, often an 8-bit processor, parses columns one-by-one and recovers the state of 8 keys at once. This matrix scan process can be described as 192 keys (some keys may not be used, for instance modern keyboards use 104/105 keys) arranged in 24 columns and 8 rows. These columns are continuously pulsed one-by-one for at least 3μs. Thus, these leads may act as an antenna and generate electromagnetic emanations. If an attacker is able to capture these emanations, he can easily recover the column of the pressed key. Even if this signal does not fully describe the pressed key, it still gives partial information on the transmitted scan code, i.e. the column number. Note that the matrix scan routine loops continuously. When no key is pressed, we still have a signal composed of multiple equidistant peaks. These emanations may be used to remotely detect the presence of powered computers. Concerning wireless keyboards, the wireless data burst transmission can be used as an electromagnetic trigger to detect exactly when a key is pressed, while the matrix s

  Read more →
• 

  Norm (artificial intelligence)

  Norms can be considered from different perspectives in artificial intelligence to create computers and computer software that are capable of intelligent behaviour. In artificial intelligence and law, legal norms are considered in computational tools to automatically reason upon them. In multi-agent systems (MAS), a branch of artificial intelligence (AI), a norm is a guide for the common conduct of agents, thereby easing their decision-making, coordination and organization. Since most problems concerning regulation of the interaction of autonomous agents are linked to issues traditionally addressed by legal studies, and since law is the most pervasive and developed normative system, efforts to account for norms in artificial intelligence and law and in normative multi-agent systems often overlap. == Artificial intelligence and law == With the arrival of computer applications into the legal domain, and especially artificial intelligence applied to it, logic has been used as the major tool to formalize legal reasoning and has been developed in many directions, ranging from deontic logics to formal systems of argumentation. The knowledge base of legal reasoning systems usually includes legal norms (such as governmental regulations and contracts), and as a consequence, legal rules are the focus of knowledge representation and reasoning approaches to automatize and solve complex legal tasks. Legal norms are typically represented into a logic-based formalism, such as deontic logic. Artificial intelligence and law applications using an explicit representation of norms range from checking the compliance of business processes and the automatic execution of smart contracts to legal expert systems advising people on legal matters. == Multi-agent systems == Norms in multi-agent systems may appear with different degrees of explicitness ranging from fully unambiguous written prescriptions to implicit unwritten norms or tacit emerging patterns. Computer scientists’ studies mirror this polarity. Explicit norms are typically investigated in formal logics (e.g. deontic logics and argumentation) to represent and reason upon them, leading eventually to architecture for cognitive agents, while implicit norms are accounted as patterns emerging from repeated interactions amongst agents (typically reinforced learning agents). Explicit and implicit norms can be used together to coordinate agents. Explicit norms are typically represented as a deontic statement that aims at regulating the life of software agents and the interactions among them. It can be an obligation, a permission or a prohibition, and is often represented with some dialect or extension of Deontic logic. At the opposite, implicit norms are social norms that are not written, and they usually emerge from the repetitive interactions of agents.

  Read more →
• 

  John F. Sowa

  John Florian Sowa (born 1940) is an American computer scientist, an expert in artificial intelligence and computer design, and the inventor of conceptual graphs. == Biography == Sowa received a BS in mathematics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1962, an MA in applied mathematics from Harvard University in 1966, and a PhD in computer science from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 1999 with a dissertation titled "Knowledge Representation: Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations". Sowa spent most of his professional career at IBM, starting in 1962 at IBM's applied mathematics group. Over the decades he has researched and developed emerging fields of computer science from compilers, programming languages, and system architecture to artificial intelligence and knowledge representation. In the 1990s Sowa was associated with the IBM Educational Center in New York. Over the years he taught courses at the IBM Systems Research Institute, Binghamton University, Stanford University, the Linguistic Society of America and the Université du Québec à Montréal. He is a fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. After early retirement at IBM, Sowa in 2001 cofounded VivoMind Intelligence, Inc. with Arun K. Majumdar. With this company he was developing data-mining and database technology, more specifically high-level "ontologies" for artificial intelligence and automated natural language understanding. Currently Sowa is working with Kyndi Inc., also founded by Majumdar. John Sowa is married to the philologist Cora Angier Sowa, and they live in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. == Work == Sowa's research interests since the 1970s were in the field of artificial intelligence, expert systems and database query linked to natural languages. In his work he combines ideas from numerous disciplines and eras modern and ancient, for example, applying ideas from Aristotle, the medieval scholastics to Alfred North Whitehead and including database schema theory, and incorporating the model of analogy of Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah in his works. === Conceptual graph === Sowa invented conceptual graphs, a graphic notation for logic and natural language, based on the structures in semantic networks and on the existential graphs of Charles S. Peirce. He introduced the concept in the 1976 article "Conceptual graphs for a data base interface" in the IBM Journal of Research and Development. He elaborated upon it in the 1983 book Conceptual structures: information processing in mind and machine. In the 1980s, this theory had "been adopted by a number of research and development groups throughout the world. International conferences on conceptual structures (ICCS) have been held since 1993, following a series of conceptual graph workshops that began in 1986. === Sowa's law of standards === In 1991, Sowa first stated his Law of Standards: "Whenever a major organization develops a new system as an official standard for X, the primary result is the widespread adoption of some simpler system as a de facto standard for X." Like Gall's law, The Law of Standards is essentially an argument in favour of underspecification. Examples include: The introduction of PL/I resulting in COBOL and FORTRAN becoming the de facto standards for business and scientific programming respectively The introduction of Algol-68 resulting in Pascal becoming the de facto standard for academic programming The introduction of the Ada language resulting in C becoming the de facto standard for US Department of Defense programming The introduction of OS/2 resulting in Windows becoming the de facto standard for desktop OS The introduction of X.400 resulting in SMTP becoming the de facto standard for electronic mail The introduction of X.500 resulting in LDAP becoming the de facto standard for directory services == Publications == 1984. Conceptual Structures - Information Processing in Mind and Machine. The Systems Programming Series, Addison-Wesley 1991. Principles of Semantic Networks. Morgan Kaufmann. Mineau, Guy W; Moulin, Bernard; Sowa, John F, eds. (1993). Conceptual Graphs for Knowledge Representation. LNCS. Vol. 699. doi:10.1007/3-540-56979-0. ISBN 978-3-540-56979-4. S2CID 32275791. 1994. International Conference on Conceptual Structures (2nd : 1994 : College Park, Md.) Conceptual structures, current practices : Second International Conference on Conceptual Structures, ICCS'94, College Park, Maryland, USA, August 16–20, 1994 : proceedings. William M. Tepfenhart, Judith P. Dick, John F. Sowa, eds. Ellis, Gerard; Levinson, Robert; Rich, William; Sowa, John F, eds. (1995). Conceptual Structures: Applications, Implementation and Theory. LNCS. Vol. 954. doi:10.1007/3-540-60161-9. ISBN 978-3-540-60161-6. S2CID 27300281. Lukose, Dickson; Delugach, Harry; Keeler, Mary; Searle, Leroy; Sowa, John, eds. (1997). Conceptual Structures: Fulfilling Peirce's Dream. LNCS. Vol. 1257. doi:10.1007/BFb0027865. ISBN 3-540-63308-1. S2CID 1934069. 2000. Knowledge representation : logical, philosophical, and computational foundations, Brooks Cole Publishing Co., Pacific Grove Articles, a selection Sowa, J. F. (July 1976). "Conceptual Graphs for a Data Base Interface". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 20 (4): 336–357. doi:10.1147/rd.204.0336. Sowa, J. F.; Zachman, J. A. (1992). "Extending and formalizing the framework for information systems architecture". IBM Systems Journal. 31 (3): 590–616. doi:10.1147/sj.313.0590. 1992. "Conceptual Graph Summary"; In: T.E. Nagle et al. (Eds.). Conceptual Structures: Current Research and Practice. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. 1995. "Top-level ontological categories." in: International journal of human-computer studies. Vol. 43, Iss. 5–6, Nov. 1995, pp. 669–685 2006. "Semantic Networks". In: Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science.. John Wiley & Sons.

  Read more →