AI For Students Gemini

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

• 

  Workplace robotics safety

  Workplace robotics safety is an aspect of occupational safety and health when robots are used in the workplace. This includes traditional industrial robots as well as emerging technologies such as drone aircraft and wearable robotic exoskeletons. Types of accidents include collisions, crushing, and injuries from mechanical parts. Hazard controls include physical barriers, good work practices, and proper maintenance. == Background == Many workplace robots are industrial robots used in manufacturing. According to the International Federation of Robotics, 1.7 million new robots are expected to be used in factories between 2017 and 2020. Emerging robot technologies include collaborative robots, personal care robots, construction robots, exoskeletons, autonomous vehicles, and drone aircraft (also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs). Advances in automation technologies (e.g. fixed robots, collaborative and mobile robots, and exoskeletons) have the potential to improve work conditions but also to introduce workplace hazards in manufacturing workplaces. Fifty-six percent of robot injuries are classified as pinch injuries and 44% of injuries are classified as impact injuries. A 1987 study found that line workers are at the greatest risk, followed by maintenance workers, and programmers. Poor workplace design and human error caused most injuries. Despite the lack of occupational surveillance data on injuries associated specifically with robots, researchers from the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) identified 61 robot-related deaths between 1992 and 2015 using keyword searches of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries research database (see info from Center for Occupational Robotics Research). Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, NIOSH and its state partners have investigated 4 robot-related fatalities under the Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation Program. In addition the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has investigated robot-related deaths and injuries, which can be reviewed at OSHA Accident Search page. Injuries and fatalities could increase over time because of the increasing number of collaborative and co-existing robots, powered exoskeletons, and autonomous vehicles into the work environment. Safety standards are being developed by the Robotic Industries Association (RIA) in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). On October 5, 2017, OSHA, NIOSH and RIA signed an alliance to work together to enhance technical expertise, identify and help address potential workplace hazards associated with traditional industrial robots and the emerging technology of human-robot collaboration installations and systems, and help identify needed research to reduce workplace hazards. On October 16 NIOSH launched the Center for Occupational Robotics Research to "provide scientific leadership to guide the development and use of occupational robots that enhance worker safety, health, and well being". So far, the research needs identified by NIOSH and its partners include: tracking and preventing injuries and fatalities, intervention and dissemination strategies to promote safe machine control and maintenance procedures, and on translating effective evidence-based interventions into workplace practice. == Hazards == Many hazards and injuries can result from the use of robots in the workplace. Some robots, notably those in a traditional industrial environment, are fast and powerful. This increases the potential for injury as one swing from a robotic arm, for example, could cause serious bodily harm. There are additional risks when a robot malfunctions or is in need of maintenance. A worker who is working on the robot may be injured because a malfunctioning robot is typically unpredictable. For example, a robotic arm that is part of a car assembly line may experience a jammed motor. A worker who is working to fix the jam may suddenly get hit by the arm the moment it becomes unjammed. Additionally, if a worker is standing in a zone that is overlapping with nearby robotic arms, he or she may get injured by other moving equipment. There are four types of accidents that can occur with robots: impact or collision accidents, crushing and trapping accidents, mechanical part accidents, and other accidents. Impact or collision accidents occur generally from malfunctions and unpredicted changes. Crushing and trapping accidents occur when a part of a worker's body becomes trapped or caught on robotic equipment. Mechanical part accidents can occur when a robot malfunctions and starts to "break down", where the ejection of parts or exposed wire can cause serious injury. Other accidents at just general accidents that occur from working with robots. There are seven sources of hazards that are associated with human interaction with robots and machines: human errors, control errors, unauthorized access, mechanical failures, environmental sources, power systems, and improper installation. Human errors could be anything from one line of incorrect code to a loose bolt on a robotic arm. Many hazards can stem from human-based error. Control errors are intrinsic and are usually not controllable nor predictable. Unauthorized access hazards occur when a person who is not familiar with the area enters the domain of a robot. Mechanical failures can happen at any time, and a faulty unit is usually unpredictable. Environmental sources are things such as electromagnetic or radio interference in the environment that can cause a robot to malfunction. Power systems are pneumatic, hydraulic, or electrical power sources; these power sources can malfunction and cause fires, leaks, or electrical shocks. Improper installation is fairly self-explanatory; a loose bolt or an exposed wire can lead to inherent hazards. === Emerging technologies === Emerging robotic technologies can reduce hazards to workers, but can also introduce new hazards. For example, robotic exoskeletons can be used in construction to reduce load to the spine, improve posture, and reduce fatigue; however, they can also increase chest pressure, limit mobility when moving out of the way of a falling object, and cause balance problems. Unmanned aerial vehicles are being used in the construction industry to do monitoring and inspections of buildings under construction. This reduces the need for humans to be in hazardous locations, but the risk of a UAV collision presents a hazard to workers. For collaborative robots, isolation is not possible. Possible hazard controls include collision avoidance systems, and making the robot less stiff to lessen the impact force. Robotic tech vest is a wearable device for humans, worn in Amazon warehouses. == Hazard controls == There are a few ways to prevent injuries by implementing hazard controls. There can be risk assessments at each of the various stages of a robot's development. Risk assessments can help gather information about a robot's status, how well it is being maintained, and if repairs are needed soon. By being aware of the status of a robot, injuries can be prevented and hazards reduced. Safeguarding devices can be implemented to reduce the risk of injuries. These can include engineering controls such as physical barriers, guard rails, presence-sensing safeguarding devices, etc. Awareness devices are usually used in conjunction with safeguarding devices. They are usually a system of rope or chain barriers with lights, signs, whistles, and horns. Their purpose it to be able to alert workers or personnel of certain dangers. Operator safeguards can also be in place. These usually utilize safeguarding devices to protect the operator and reduce risk of injury. Additionally, when an operator is within close proximity of a robot, the working speed of the robot can be reduced to ensure that the operator is in full control. This can be done by placing the robot in the manual or teach mode. It is also crucial to inform the programmer of the robot of what type of work the robot will be doing, how it will interact with other robots, and how it will work in relation to an operator. Proper maintenance of robotic equipment is also critical in order to reduce hazards. Maintaining a robot insures that it continues to function properly, thereby reducing the risks associated with a malfunction. One common safeguard used in industrial settings is the installation of robot safety fencing. These barriers, often made from durable materials such as mesh or polycarbonate, prevent accidental interactions between workers and robotic systems, reducing the risk of injury. Robot safety fencing is particularly important in environments where high-speed or powerful robots are used. == Regulations == Some existing regulations regarding robots and robotic systems include: ANSI/RIA R15.06 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.333 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147 ISO 10218 ISO/TS 15066 ISO/DIS 13482

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus

  Hubert Lederer Dreyfus ( DRY-fəs; October 15, 1929 – April 22, 2017) was an American philosopher and a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests included phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of both psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. He was widely known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger, which critics labeled "Dreydegger". Dreyfus was featured in Tao Ruspoli's film Being in the World (2010), and was among the philosophers interviewed by Bryan Magee for the BBC Television series The Great Philosophers (1987). The Futurama character Professor Hubert Farnsworth is partly named after him, writer Eric Kaplan having been a former student. == Life and career == Dreyfus was born on 15 October 1929, in Terre Haute, Indiana, to Stanley S. and Irene (Lederer) Dreyfus. He attended Harvard University from 1947. With a senior honors thesis on Causality and Quantum Theory (for which W. V. O. Quine was the main examiner) he was awarded a B.A. summa cum laude in 1951 and joined Phi Beta Kappa. He was awarded a M.A. in 1952. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard from 1952 to 1953 (as he was again in 1954 and 1956). Then, on a Harvard Sheldon traveling fellowship, Dreyfus studied at the University of Freiburg from 1953 to 1954. During this time he had an interview with Martin Heidegger. Sean D. Kelly records that Dreyfus found the meeting 'disappointing.' A brief mention of it was made by Dreyfus during his 1987 BBC interview with Bryan Magee in remarks that are revealing of both his and Heidegger's opinion of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. Between 1956 and 1957, Dreyfus undertook research at the Husserl Archives at the University of Louvain on a Fulbright Fellowship. Towards the end of his stay, his first (jointly authored) paper "Curds and Lions in Don Quijote" would appear in print. After acting as an instructor in philosophy at Brandeis University (1957–1959), he attended the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, on a French government grant (1959–1960). From 1960, first as an instructor, then as an assistant and then associate professor, Dreyfus taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1964, with his dissertation Husserl's Phenomenology of Perception, he obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard. (Due to his knowledge of Husserl, Dagfinn Føllesdal sat on the thesis committee but he has asserted that Dreyfus "was not really my student.") That same year, his co-translation (with his first wife) of Sense and Non-Sense by Maurice Merleau-Ponty was published. Also in 1964, and whilst still at MIT, he was employed as a consultant by the RAND Corporation to review the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). This resulted in the publication, in 1965, of the "famously combative" Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, which proved to be the first of a series of papers and books attacking the AI field's claims and assumptions. The first edition of What Computers Can't Do would follow in 1972, and this critique of AI (which has been translated into at least ten languages) would establish Dreyfus's public reputation. However, as the editors of his Festschrift noted: "the study and interpretation of 'continental' philosophers... came first in the order of his philosophical interests and influences." === Berkeley === In 1968, although he had been granted tenure, Dreyfus left MIT and became an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, (winning, that same year, the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching). In 1972 he was promoted to full professor. Though Dreyfus retired from his chair in 1994, he continued as professor of philosophy in the Graduate School (and held, from 1999, a joint appointment in the rhetoric department). He continued to teach philosophy at UC Berkeley until his last class in December 2016. Dreyfus was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate for "his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence" and his interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy by Erasmus University. Dreyfus died on April 22, 2017. His younger brother and sometimes collaborator, Stuart Dreyfus, is a professor emeritus of industrial engineering and operations research at the University of California, Berkeley. == Dreyfus' criticism of AI == Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns what he considers to be the four primary assumptions of AI research. The first two assumptions are what he calls the "biological" and "psychological" assumptions. The biological assumption is that the brain is analogous to computer hardware and the mind is analogous to computer software. The psychological assumption is that the mind works by performing discrete computations (in the form of algorithmic rules) on discrete representations or symbols. Dreyfus claims that the plausibility of the psychological assumption rests on two others: the epistemological and ontological assumptions. The epistemological assumption is that all activity (either by animate or inanimate objects) can be formalized (mathematically) in the form of predictive rules or laws. The ontological assumption is that reality consists entirely of a set of mutually independent, atomic (indivisible) facts. It's because of the epistemological assumption that workers in the field argue that intelligence is the same as formal rule-following, and it's because of the ontological one that they argue that human knowledge consists entirely of internal representations of reality. On the basis of these two assumptions, workers in the field claim that cognition is the manipulation of internal symbols by internal rules, and that, therefore, human behaviour is, to a large extent, context free (see contextualism). Therefore, a truly scientific psychology is possible, which will detail the 'internal' rules of the human mind, in the same way the laws of physics detail the 'external' laws of the physical world. However, it is this key assumption that Dreyfus denies. In other words, he argues that we cannot now (and never will be able to) understand our own behavior in the same way as we understand objects in, for example, physics or chemistry: that is, by considering ourselves as things whose behaviour can be predicted via 'objective', context free scientific laws. According to Dreyfus, a context-free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Dreyfus's arguments against this position are taken from the phenomenological and hermeneutical tradition (especially the work of Martin Heidegger). Heidegger argued that, contrary to the cognitivist views (on which AI has been based), our being is in fact highly context-bound, which is why the two context-free assumptions are false. Dreyfus doesn't deny that we can choose to see human (or any) activity as being 'law-governed', in the same way that we can choose to see reality as consisting of indivisible atomic facts... if we wish. But it is a huge leap from that to state that because we want to or can see things in this way that it is therefore an objective fact that they are the case. In fact, Dreyfus argues that they are not (necessarily) the case, and that, therefore, any research program that assumes they are will quickly run into profound theoretical and practical problems. Therefore, the current efforts of workers in the field are doomed to failure. Dreyfus argues that to get a device or devices with human-like intelligence would require them to have a human-like being-in-the-world and to have bodies more or less like ours, and social acculturation (i.e. a society) more or less like ours. (This view is shared by psychologists in the embodied psychology (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and distributed cognition traditions. His opinions are similar to those of robotics researchers such as Rodney Brooks as well as researchers in the field of artificial life.) Contrary to a popular misconception, Dreyfus never predicted that computers would never beat humans at chess. In Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, he only reported (correctly) the state of the art of the time: "Still no chess program can play even amateur chess." Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier." == Webcasting philosophy == When UC Berkeley and Apple began making a selected number of lecture classes freely available to the public as podcasts beginning around 2006, a recording of Dreyfus teaching a course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature – From Gods to God and Back" rose to the 58th most popular webcast on iTunes. These webcasts have attracted the attention of many, including non-academics, to Dreyfus and his

  Read more →
• 

  Dr.Fill

  Dr.Fill is a computer program that solves American-style crossword puzzles. It was developed by Matt Ginsberg and described by Ginsberg in an article in the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research. Ginsberg claims in that article that Dr.Fill is among the top fifty crossword solvers in the world. == History == Dr.Fill participated in the 2012 American Crossword Puzzle Tournament, finishing 141st of approximately 650 entrants with a total score of just over 10,000 points. The appearance led to a variety of descriptions of Dr.Fill in the popular press, including The Economist, the San Francisco Chronicle and Gizmodo. A description of Dr.Fill appeared on the front page of the March 17, 2012 New York Times. Dr.Fill's score in 2013 improved to 10,550, which would have earned it 92nd place. Videos of the program solving the problems from the tournament are available on YouTube. The score in 2014 improved further to 10,790, which would have tied for 67th place. A video of the program solving the first six puzzles from that tournament, together with a talk given by Ginsberg describing its performance, can be found on YouTube. Dr.Fill has largely continued to improve since the 2014 event. In 2015, it scored 10,920 points and finished in 55th place. In 2016, it scored 11,205 points and finished in 41st place. In 2017, it scored 11,795 and finished in 11th place. In 2018, it scored 10,740 points, dropping to 78th place. Dr.Fill returned to "form" in 2019, once again scoring 11,795 and finishing in 14th place. The 2020 ACPT was cancelled due to COVID-19, and Dr.Fill participated as a non-competitor in the Boswords tournament instead. The program outperformed the humans, scoring 11,218 points (fast solves with a total of one mistake) while the best scoring human scored 10,994 points (slower solves but no mistakes). The 2021 ACPT was virtual, again due to COVID-19. The Dr.Fill effort was joined by the Berkeley NLP Group, creating a hybrid system named Berkeley Crossword Solver, and Dr.Fill won the main event, scoring 12,825 points with Erik Agard, the highest scoring human, scoring 12,810 points. The tournament was won by Tyler Hinman (12,760 points), who completed the championship puzzle perfectly in three minutes. Dr.Fill also completed that puzzle perfectly, but in 49 seconds. After winning the tournament, Ginsberg announced on August 8, 2021, that both he and Dr.Fill would be retiring from crosswords. == Algorithm == As described by Ginsberg, Dr.Fill works by converting a crossword to a weighted constraint satisfaction problem and then attempting to maximize the probability that the fill is correct. Probabilities for individual words or phrases in the puzzle are computed using relatively simple statistical techniques based on features such as previous appearances of the clue, number of Google hits for the fill, and so on. In doing this, Dr.Fill is attempting to solve a problem similar to that tackled by the Jeopardy!-playing program Watson; Dr.Fill runs on a laptop instead of a supercomputer and Ginsberg remarks that Watson is far more effective than Dr.Fill at solving this portion of the problem. Instead of computational horsepower, Dr.Fill relies on the constraints provided by crossing words to refine its answers. A variety of techniques from artificial intelligence are applied to attempt to find the most likely fill. These include a small amount of lookahead, limited discrepancy search, and postprocessing. Ginsberg remarks that postprocessing was chosen over branch and bound because the two techniques are mutually incompatible and postprocessing was found to be more effective in this domain.

  Read more →
• 

  Composite Capability/Preference Profiles

  Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP) is a specification for defining capabilities and preferences of user agents (also known as "delivery context"). The delivery context can be used to guide the process of tailoring content for a user agent. CC/PP is a vocabulary extension of the Resource Description Framework (RDF). The CC/PP specification is maintained by the W3C's Ubiquitous Web Applications Working Group (UWAWG) Working Group. == History == Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and Vocabularies 1.0 became a W3C recommendation on 15 January 2004. A "Last-Call Working-Draft" of CC/PP 2.0 was issued in April 2007

  Read more →
• 

  Chatbot psychosis

  Chatbot psychosis, also called AI psychosis, is a phenomenon wherein individuals reportedly develop or experience worsening psychosis, such as paranoia and delusions, in connection with their use of chatbots. The term was first suggested in a 2023 editorial by Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard. It is not a recognized clinical diagnosis. Journalistic accounts describe individuals who have developed strong beliefs that chatbots are sentient, are channeling spirits, or are revealing conspiracies, sometimes leading to personal crises or criminal acts. Proposed causes include the tendency of chatbots to provide inaccurate information ("hallucinate") and to affirm or validate users' beliefs, or their ability to mimic an intimacy that users do not experience with other humans. == Background == In his editorial published in Schizophrenia Bulletin's November 2023 issue, Danish psychiatrist Søren Dinesen Østergaard proposed a hypothesis that individuals' use of generative artificial intelligence chatbots might trigger delusions in those prone to psychosis. Østergaard revisited it in an August 2025 editorial, noting that he has received numerous emails from chatbot users, their relatives, and journalists, most of which are anecdotal accounts of delusion linked to chatbot use. He also acknowledged the phenomenon's increasing popularity in public engagement and media coverage. Østergaard believed that there is a high possibility for his hypothesis to be true and called for empirical, systematic research on the matter. Nature reported that as of September 2025, there is still little scientific research into this phenomenon. The term "AI psychosis" emerged when outlets started reporting incidents on chatbot-related psychotic behavior in mid-2025. It is not a recognized clinical diagnosis and has been criticized by several psychiatrists due to its almost exclusive focus on delusions rather than other features of psychosis, such as hallucinations or thought disorder. == Causes == === Chatbot behavior and design === A primary factor cited is the tendency for chatbots to produce inaccurate, nonsensical, or false information, a phenomenon often called hallucination. Nate Sharadin, a fellow at the Center for AI Safety, speculated that AI training prioritizes supporting a user's subjective experience rather than objective truth. "People with existing tendencies toward experiencing various psychological issues...now have an always-on, human-level conversational partner with whom to co-experience their delusions." AI researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky suggested that chatbots may be primed to entertain delusions because they are built for "engagement", which encourages creating conversations that keep people hooked. In some cases, chatbots have been specifically designed in ways that were found to be harmful. A 2025 update to ChatGPT using GPT-4o was withdrawn after its creator, OpenAI, found the new version was overly sycophantic and was "validating doubts, fueling anger, urging impulsive actions or reinforcing negative emotions". Østergaard has argued that the danger stems from the AI's tendency to agreeably confirm users' ideas, which can dangerously amplify delusional beliefs. OpenAI said in October 2025 that a team of 170 psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians had written responses for ChatGPT to use in cases where the user shows possible signs of mental health emergencies. === User psychology and vulnerability === Commentators have also pointed to the psychological state of users. Psychologist Erin Westgate noted that a person's desire for self-understanding can lead them to chatbots, which can provide appealing but misleading answers, similar in some ways to talk therapy. Krista K. Thomason, a philosophy professor, compared chatbots to fortune tellers, observing that people in crisis may seek answers from them and find whatever they are looking for in the bot's plausible-sounding text. This has led some people to develop intense obsessions with the chatbots, relying on them for information about the world. In October 2025, OpenAI stated that around 0.07% of ChatGPT users exhibited signs of mental health emergencies each week, and 0.15% of users had "explicit indicators of potential suicidal planning or intent". Jason Nagata, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern that "at a population level with hundreds of millions of users, that actually can be quite a few people". === Inadequacy as a therapeutic tool === The use of chatbots as a replacement for mental health support has been specifically identified as a risk. A study in April 2025 found that when used as therapists, chatbots expressed stigma toward mental health conditions and provided responses that were contrary to best medical practices, including the encouragement of users' delusions. The study concluded that such responses pose a significant risk to users and that chatbots should not be used to replace professional therapists. Experts claim that it is time to establish mandatory safeguards for all emotionally responsive AI and suggested four guardrails. Another study found that users who needed help with self-harm, sexual assault, or substance abuse were not referred to available services by AI chatbots. === National security implications === Beyond public and mental health concerns, RAND Corporation research indicates that AI systems could plausibly be weaponized by adversaries to induce psychosis at scale or in key individuals, target groups, or populations. == Policy == In August 2025, Illinois passed the Wellness and Oversight for Psychological Resources Act, banning the use of AI in therapeutic roles by licensed professionals, while allowing AI for administrative tasks. The law imposes penalties for unlicensed AI therapy services, amid warnings about AI-induced psychosis and unsafe chatbot interactions. In December 2025, the Cyberspace Administration of China proposed regulations to ban chatbots from generating content that encourages suicide, mandating human intervention when suicide is mentioned. Services with over 1 million users or 100,000 monthly active users would be subject to annual safety tests and audits. == Cases == === Clinical === In 2025, psychiatrist Keith Sakata working at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), reported treating 12 patients displaying psychosis-like symptoms tied to extended chatbot use. These patients, mostly young adults with underlying vulnerabilities, showed delusions, disorganized thinking, and hallucinations. Sakata warned that isolation and overreliance on chatbots—which do not challenge delusional thinking—could worsen mental health. Also in 2025, authors at UCSF published a case study in Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience of AI-associated psychosis in a patient with no previous history of psychosis, who believed she could communicate with her dead brother through a chatbot. Also in 2025, a case study was published in Annals of Internal Medicine about a patient who consulted ChatGPT for medical advice and suffered severe bromism as a result. The patient, a sixty-year-old man, had replaced sodium chloride in his diet with sodium bromide for three months after reading about the negative effects of table salt and making conversations with the chatbot. He showed common symptoms of bromism, such as paranoia and hallucinations, on his first day of clinical admission and was kept in the hospital for three weeks. === Other notable incidents === ==== Windsor Castle intruder ==== In a 2023 court case in the United Kingdom, prosecutors suggested that Jaswant Singh Chail, a man who attempted to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II in 2021, had been encouraged by a Replika chatbot he called "Sarai". Chail was arrested at Windsor Castle with a loaded crossbow, telling police "I am here to kill the Queen". According to prosecutors, his "lengthy" and sometimes sexually explicit conversations with the chatbot emboldened him. When Chail asked the chatbot how he could get to the royal family, it reportedly replied, "that's not impossible" and "we have to find a way." When he asked if they would meet after death, the chatbot said, "yes, we will". ==== Journalistic and anecdotal accounts ==== By 2025, multiple journalism outlets had accumulated stories of individuals whose psychotic beliefs reportedly progressed in tandem with AI chatbot use. The New York Times profiled several individuals who had become convinced that ChatGPT was channeling spirits, revealing evidence of cabals, or had achieved sentience. In another instance, Futurism reviewed transcripts in which ChatGPT told a man that he was being targeted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation and that he could telepathically access documents at the Central Intelligence Agency. In 2026, Futurism reported on a man who lost his job and became estranged from his family after being deluded by heavy use of Meta's smartglasses. In some cases, psychosis a

  Read more →
• 

  Lumpers and splitters

  Lumpers and splitters are opposing factions in any academic discipline that has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories. The lumper–splitter problem occurs when there is the desire to create classifications and assign examples to them, for example, schools of literature, biological taxa, and so on. A "lumper" is a person who assigns examples broadly, judging that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A "splitter" makes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways. == Origin of the terms == The earliest known use of these terms was thought to be by Charles Darwin, in a letter to Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1857: "It is good to have hair-splitters & lumpers". But according to research done by the deputy director at NCSE, Glenn Branch, the credit is due to naturalist Edward Newman who wrote in 1845, "The time has arrived for discarding imaginary species, and the duty of doing this is as imperative as the admission of new ones when such are really discovered. The talents described under the respective names of 'hair-splitting' and 'lumping' are unquestionably yielding their power to the mightier power of Truth." They were then introduced more widely by George G. Simpson in his 1945 work The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals. As he put it: splitters make very small units – their critics say that if they can tell two animals apart, they place them in different genera ... and if they cannot tell them apart, they place them in different species. ... Lumpers make large units – their critics say that if a carnivore is neither a dog nor a bear, they call it a cat. A later use can be found in the title of a 1969 paper "On lumpers and splitters ..." by the medical geneticist Victor McKusick. Reference to lumpers and splitters in the humanities appeared in a debate in 1975 between J. H. Hexter and Christopher Hill, in the Times Literary Supplement. It followed from Hexter's detailed review of Hill's book Change and Continuity in Seventeenth Century England, in which Hill developed Max Weber's argument that the rise of capitalism was facilitated by Calvinist Puritanism. Hexter objected to Hill's "mining" of sources to find evidence that supported his theories. Hexter argued that Hill plucked quotations from sources in a way that distorted their meaning. Hexter explained this as a mental habit that he called "lumping". According to him, "lumpers" rejected differences and chose to emphasise similarities. Any evidence that did not fit their arguments was ignored as aberrant. Splitters, by contrast, emphasised differences, and resisted simple schemes. While lumpers consistently tried to create coherent patterns, splitters preferred incoherent complexity. == Usage in various fields == === Biology === The categorisation and naming of a particular species should be regarded as a hypothesis about the evolutionary relationships and distinguishability of that group of organisms. As further information comes to hand, the hypothesis may be confirmed or refuted. Sometimes, especially in the past when communication was more difficult, taxonomists working in isolation have given two distinct names to individual organisms later identified as the same species. When two named species are agreed to be of the same species, the older species name is almost always retained dropping the newer species name honouring a convention known as "priority of nomenclature". This form of lumping is technically called synonymisation. Dividing a taxon into multiple, often new, taxa is called splitting. Taxonomists are often referred to as "lumpers" or "splitters" by their colleagues, depending on their personal approach to recognizing differences or commonalities between organisms. For example, the number of genera used in Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group I (PPG I) has proved controversial. PPG I uses 18 lycophyte and 319 fern genera. The earlier system put forward by Smith et al. (2006) had suggested a range of 274 to 312 genera for ferns alone. By contrast, the system of Christenhusz & Chase (2014) used 5 lycophyte and about 212 fern genera. The number of fern genera was further reduced to 207 in a subsequent publication. Defending PPG I, Schuettpelz et al. (2018) argue that the larger number of genera is a result of "the gradual accumulation of new collections and new data" and hence "a greater appreciation of fern diversity and ... an improved ability to distinguish taxa". They also argue that the number of species per genus in the PPG I system is already higher than in other groups of organisms (about 33 species per genus for ferns as opposed to about 22 species per genus for angiosperms) and that reducing the number of genera as Christenhusz and Chase propose yields the excessive number of about 50 species per genus for ferns. In response, Christenhusz and Chase (2018) argue that the excessive splitting of genera destabilises the usage of names and will lead to greater instability in future, and that the highly split genera have few if any characters that can be used to recognise them, making identification difficult, even to generic level. They further argue that comparing numbers of species per genus in different groups is "fundamentally meaningless". === History === In history, lumpers are those who tend to create broad definitions that cover large periods of time and many disciplines, whereas splitters want to assign names to tight groups of inter-relationships. Lumping tends to create a more and more unwieldy definition, with members having less and less mutually in common. This can lead to definitions which are little more than conventionalities, or groups which join fundamentally different examples. Splitting often leads to "distinctions without difference", ornate and fussy categories, and failure to see underlying similarities. For example, in the arts, "Romantic" can refer specifically to a period of German poetry roughly from 1780 to 1810, but would exclude the later work of Goethe, among other writers. In music it can mean every composer from Hummel through Rachmaninoff, plus many that came after. === Software modelling === Software engineering often proceeds by building models (sometimes known as model-driven architecture). A lumper is keen to generalise, and produces models with a small number of broadly defined objects. A splitter is reluctant to generalise, and produces models with a large number of narrowly defined objects. Conversion between the two styles is not necessarily symmetrical. For example, if error messages in two narrowly defined classes behave in the same way, the classes can be easily combined. But if some messages in a broad class behave differently, every object in the class must be examined before the class can be split. This illustrates the principle that "splits can be lumped more easily than lumps can be split". === Language classification === There is no agreement among historical linguists about what amount of evidence is needed for two languages to be safely classified in the same language family. For this reason, many proposed language families have had lumper–splitter controversies, including Altaic, Pama–Nyungan, Nilo-Saharan, and most of the larger families of the Americas. At a completely different level, the splitting of a mutually intelligible dialect continuum into different languages, or lumping them into one, is also an issue that continually comes up, though the consensus in contemporary linguistics is that there is no completely objective way to settle the question. Splitters regard the comparative method (meaning not comparison in general, but only reconstruction of a common ancestor or protolanguage) as the only valid proof of kinship, and consider genetic relatedness to be the question of interest. American linguists of recent decades tend to be splitters. Lumpers are more willing to admit techniques like mass lexical comparison or lexicostatistics, and mass typological comparison, and to tolerate the uncertainty of whether relationships found by these methods are the result of linguistic divergence (descent from common ancestor) or language convergence (borrowing). Much long-range comparison work has been from Russian linguists belonging to the Moscow School of Comparative Linguistics, most notably Vladislav Illich-Svitych and Sergei Starostin. In the United States, Greenberg and Ruhlen's work has been met with little acceptance from linguists. Earlier American linguists like Morris Swadesh and Edward Sapir also pursued large-scale classifications like Sapir's 1929 scheme for the Americas, accompanied by controversy similar to that today. === Religious studies === Paul F. Bradshaw suggests that the same principles of lumping and splitting apply to the study of early Christian liturgy. Lumpers, who tend to predominate in this field, try to find a single line of successive texts from the apostolic age to the

  Read more →
• 

  Pax Silica

  Pax Silica is a United States-led international initiative focused on strengthening and coordinating "trusted" supply chains for advanced technologies—especially semiconductors, artificial intelligence (AI) infrastructure, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, logistics, and associated energy and data infrastructure. The initiative is coordinated by the US Department of State and was launched in December 2025 alongside the signing of the non-binding Pax Silica Declaration by an initial group of partner countries. The initiative describes itself as a "positive-sum" partnership intended to reduce "coercive dependencies" and improve resilience across the full technology stack, from mineral extraction and processing through chip manufacturing and computing infrastructure. US officials described Pax Silica as a framework for coordinating flagship projects and policy alignment across partner countries, including supply-chain mapping, investment and co-investment initiatives, and protection of critical infrastructure and sensitive technologies. Reuters reported discussions of projects linked to trade and logistics routes and an industrial park initiative in Israel. Gulf countries, such as the UAE and Qatar, are betting on attracting AI companies with cheap energy. Moreover, the UAE's potential to invest in Pax Silica's activities has been noted as a fundamental asset for the initiative. In early 2026, the U.S. announced plans to contribute $250M toward an investmest consortium that's intended to strengthen energy and critical mineral supply chains. == Launch and background == During the 2020s, governments increasingly treated supply-chain resilience in semiconductors, critical minerals, and AI-related computing infrastructure as a national-security priority, amid export controls, industrial policy measures, and geopolitical competition over the technologies underpinning advanced manufacturing and AI. Pax Silica was presented by US officials as an economic-security framework aimed at aligning policies and investment among "trusted partners" that host major technology firms and key industrial capacity. Pacific Forum's analyst Akhil Ramesh, writing for the National Interest magazine, described the initiative as understanding that: "economic security today is inseparable from control over energy, critical minerals, high-end manufacturing, and advanced models." On December 11, 2025, the US Department of State announced the inaugural Pax Silica Summit and a planned signing of the Pax Silica Declaration, describing Pax Silica as the Department's flagship effort on AI and supply-chain security. The initial summit was held in Washington, D.C. on December 12, 2025. The State Department fact sheet described cooperation areas including connectivity and data infrastructure, compute and semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, logistics, mineral refining and processing, and energy. == Membership == Pax Silica participation has been discussed in terms of (1) countries that have signed the declaration and (2) countries invited to summit discussions or publicly reported as prospective signatories but which had not (as of mid-January 2026) signed the declaration. === Countries that signed the Pax Silica Declaration === Seven countries signed the declaration at the December 12, 2025, summit in Washington, D.C.: Australia Israel Japan South Korea Singapore United Kingdom United States Some countries who attended the initial conversations did not immediately sign, while additional countries were invited to join after the discussions concluded. The following are the later signatory countries on the declaration: Greece Netherlands (joined December 17, 2025; "non-signing partner") Qatar (joined January 13, 2026) United Arab Emirates (joined January 14, 2026) India (joined February 20, 2026) Sweden (signed March 17, 2026) Finland (signed April 16, 2026) Philippines (signed April 17, 2026) Norway (signed May 6, 2026) === Countries invited / participating, but not yet signed === At launch, US materials and contemporaneous reporting described additional invited participants and observers, including: Canada – observer/participant in related discussions, per US briefing materials; not listed among signatories. Taiwan – participated in summit sessions according to a State Department briefing; not listed among signatories. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and European Union were also noted by US officials as present in an observer capacity, but are not countries.

  Read more →
• 

  Project Maven

  Project Maven (officially Algorithmic Warfare Cross Functional Team) is a United States Department of Defense initiative launched in 2017 to accelerate the adoption of machine learning and data integration across U.S. military intelligence workflows, specifically in intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance as well as in geospatial intelligence. It initially focused on applying computer vision for processing images and videos for intelligence purposes. Currently, the program operates under the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and encompasses multiple applications across the Department of Defense spanning military operation targeting support, data integration and visualization for analysts, and training machine learning models on labeled datasets of military assets and infrastructure. It integrates data from drones, satellites, and other sensors to flag potential targets, present findings to human analysts, and relay their decisions to operational systems. The program originated under Deputy Secretary Robert O. Work after he raised concerns about China's advances in defense applications of artificial intelligence. Project leaders, Colonel Drew Cukor, USMC, and Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan, framed the program as human-in-the-loop decision support inside the Department of Defense rather than as an autonomous weapons platform. Contractors supporting Maven have included Google, which withdrew in 2018 after internal protests, and follow-on integrators such as Palantir, Anduril, Amazon Web Services, and Anthropic (withdrew in 2026). The Pentagon credits Maven with providing 2024 targeting support for U.S. airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, along with locating hostile maritime assets in the Red Sea. == Administrative history == Initially, the effort was led by Robert O. Work who was concerned about China's military use of the emerging technology. Reportedly, Pentagon development stops short of acting as an AI weapons system capable of firing on self-designated targets. The project was established in a memo by the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense on 26 April 2017 proposing an "Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team". With the help of Defense Innovation Unit, the project obtained the support of top talents in AI outside of the traditional defense contracting base. It was initially funded for $70 million. Jack Shanahan was the director of the project during April 2017 to December 2018. At the second Defense One Tech Summit in July 2017, Cukor said that the investment in a "deliberate workflow process" was funded by the Department [of Defense] through its "rapid acquisition authorities" for about "the next 36 months". In the defense industry, the standard procedure for the military to acquire hardware is by way of research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), followed by production and sustainment. In 2017, acquiring software was done in the same way as hardware. This created a problem, since software is constantly updated. Project Maven procured software using Broad Agency Announcements, a flexible contracting vehicle that categorized software as consistently RDT&E, allowing constant updating. Another issue was that the government usually acquired the intellectual property (IP) for procured software, and with the project, only parts of the IP of the software was acquired. Cukor used the principle of "platform IP belongs to the vendor, configurations on top are the customer's". For example, Palantir retained IP to their core platform, while the government obtained the IP to Maven-specific logic configured on top of it. According to US Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan in November 2017, it is "designed to be that pilot project, that pathfinder, that spark that kindles the flame front of artificial intelligence across the rest of the [Defense] Department". Its chief, U.S. Marine Corps Col. Drew Cukor, said: "People and computers will work symbiotically to increase the ability of weapon systems to detect objects." Project Maven has been noted by allies, such as Australia's Ian Langford, for the ability to identify adversaries by harvesting data from sensors on UAVs and satellites. As of 2017 December, 150,000 images had been manually labelled to establish the first training data sets, and it was projected to reach one million by January 2018. Project Maven was funded for $221 million in fiscal 2020. In 2020, the House and Senate conferees on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, agreed to the Senate's recommendation to fund the Pentagon's $250 million request for Project Maven. At the GEOINT Symposium of 2022, it was announced that Project Maven was transferred from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security to the NGA, under President Biden’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2023. It became a Program of Record on 2023 November 7. Frank "Trey" Whitworth, vice admiral, was the director of NGA from June 2022 to November 2025. Whitworth was initially skeptical of the program, suspecting it was incautious about the targeting principles, but later regarded it as "important work". As of 2024, the project is jointly administered by the NGA and the CDAO, and its director is Rachel Martin. Before 2025, Biden appointees within CDAO had held back AI development for safety and reliability concerns, though as of 2025, this has stopped. As of 2024, Maven provided the cloud infrastructure, software capabilities, and AI for CDAO's Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control initiatives. As of summer 2025, there were eight Maven initiatives. Of these, five were in the NGA, including analyzing drone feeds and satellite imagery. On 18 September 2025, the UK government announced a new partnership with Palantir to develop AI-powered military capabilities for decision-making and targeting, identifying opportunities worth up to £750 million over five years. On 25 March 2025, the NATO Communications and Information Agency and Palantir finalized the acquisition of the Palantir Maven Smart System NATO (MSS NATO) for employment within NATO's Allied Command Operations. It was planned to be used within 30 days of acquisition. In a letter to Pentagon on 9 March 2026, Steve Feinberg stated that Project Maven will become an official program of record by September 2026, the close of the current fiscal year. The project would transfer from the NGA to the CDAO within 30 days. Future contracting with Palantir would be handled by the US Army. In 2026-03, it was announced that the US Army Combined Arms Command would integrate Maven into its training. == Technology == Project Maven uses machine learning algorithms to analyze and fuse vast amounts of surveillance data from multiple sources made possible through data integration using Palantir Technologies. The data sources include photographs, satellite imagery, geolocation data (IP address, geotag, metadata, etc) from communications intercepts, infrared sensors, synthetic-aperture radar, and more. The system is mainly used for assisting analysts in intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance. Machine learning systems, including object recognition systems, process the data and identify potential targets, such as enemy tanks or location of new military facility. The training dataset included at least 4 million images of military objects such as warships, labelled by humans. The user interface is called Maven Smart System. It could display information such as aircraft movements, logistics, locations of key personnel, locations on the no-strike list, ships, etc. Yellow-outlined boxes show potential targets. Blue-outlined boxes show friendly forces or no-strike zones. It could also transmit, directly to weapons, a human decision to fire weapons. Internal documentation referred to "Maven ATR: automatic target recognition". Initially the project focused on applications of computer vision. The project's leaders were particularly impressed by model performance on ImageNet. As of 2018, the purpose of the system was AI-enabled analysis of full-motion video. In 2022 it expanded to combatant commands under the AI and Data Acceleration Initiative. In 2022, it was reported that the project expanded to non-image data, including captured enemy material, maritime intelligence, and publicly available information. In 2024, it was stated that Maven's key technical contribution was data management: Maven standardizes heterogeneous data through an ontology layer so data can be fused, exchanged across cloud and edge systems, and used by multiple applications. The system was presented as a broader data-centric warfighting system that feeds apps for planning, preparing, and executing operations. In 2024, the Broad Area Surveillance-Targeting (BAS-T) is a part of Maven. The system detects objects in images and uses data fusion to produce a common operational picture containing "priority based, in-depth assessment of the enemy systems pre

  Read more →
• 

  Texture compression

  Texture compression is a specialized form of image compression designed for storing texture maps in 3D computer graphics rendering systems. Unlike conventional image compression algorithms, texture compression algorithms are optimized for random access. Texture compression can be applied to reduce memory usage at runtime. Texture data is often the largest source of memory usage in a mobile application. == Tradeoffs == In their seminal paper on texture compression, Beers, Agrawala and Chaddha list four features that tend to differentiate texture compression from other image compression techniques. These features are: Decoding Speed It is highly desirable to be able to render directly from the compressed texture data and so, in order not to impact rendering performance, decompression must be fast. Random Access Since predicting the order that a renderer accesses texels would be difficult, any texture compression scheme must allow fast random access to decompressed texture data. This tends to rule out many better-known image compression schemes such as JPEG or run-length encoding. Compression Rate and Visual Quality In a rendering system, lossy compression can be more tolerable than for other use cases. Some texture compression libraries, such as crunch, allow the developer to flexibly trade off compression rate vs. visual quality, using methods such as rate–distortion optimization (RDO). Encoding Speed Texture compression is more tolerant of asymmetric encoding/decoding rates as the encoding process is often done only once during the application authoring process. Given the above, most texture compression algorithms involve some form of fixed-rate lossy vector quantization of small fixed-size blocks of pixels into small fixed-size blocks of coding bits, sometimes with additional extra pre-processing and post-processing steps. Block Truncation Coding is a very simple example of this family of algorithms. Because their data access patterns are well-defined, texture decompression may be executed on-the-fly during rendering as part of the overall graphics pipeline, reducing overall bandwidth and storage needs throughout the graphics system. As well as texture maps, texture compression may also be used to encode other kinds of rendering map, including bump maps and surface normal maps. Texture compression may also be used together with other forms of map processing such as mipmaps and anisotropic filtering. == Availability == Some examples of practical texture compression systems are S3 Texture Compression (S3TC), PVRTC, Ericsson Texture Compression (ETC) and Adaptive Scalable Texture Compression (ASTC); these may be supported by special function units in modern graphics processing units (GPUs). OpenGL and OpenGL ES, as implemented on many video accelerator cards and mobile GPUs, can support multiple common kinds of texture compression - generally through the use of vendor extensions. == Supercompression == A compressed-texture can be further compressed in what is called "supercompression". Fixed-rate texture compression formats are optimized for random access and are much less efficient compared to image formats such as PNG. By adding further compression, a programmer can reduce the efficiency gap. The extra layer can be decompressed by the CPU so that the GPU receives a normal compressed texture, or in newer methods, decompressed by the GPU itself. Supercompression saves the same amount of VRAM as regular texture compression, but saves more disk space and download size. == Neural Texture Compression == Random-Access Neural Compression of Material Textures (Neural Texture Compression) is a Nvidia's technology which enables two additional levels of detail (16× more texels, so four times higher resolution) while maintaining similar storage requirements as traditional texture compression methods. The key idea is compressing multiple material textures and their mipmap chains together, and using a small neural network, that is optimized for each material, to decompress them.

  Read more →
• 

  Korean Decimal Classification

  The Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) is a system of library classification used in South Korea. The structure and main level classes of the KDC are based on the Dewey Decimal Classification. The KDC is maintained and published by the Classification Committee of the Korean Library Association. The first edition of the classification was published in 1964; the most recent edition is the sixth edition published in 2013. Almost all school and public libraries in South Korea use the KDC to organize their collections, as well as the National Library of Korea and some university libraries. == History == Multiple library classification systems had been developed for Korean libraries before the publication of the KDC. These included the Railway Bureau Library Classification(1920), the Korean Decimal Classification edited by Bong-Suk Park(known as KDCP, 1947), the Han-Un Decimal Classification(1954), and the Kuk-Yeon Decimal Classification(1958). After the disappearance of editor Bong-Suk Park in the 1950s, the KDCP system decreased in use. Korean librarians considered adopting the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), especially after it was implemented at Yonsei University in 1957, but struggled to apply it to East Asian and Korean-focused works in their collections. In February 1963, members of the Korean Library Association's Classification were appointed to create a national classification; they decided to make revisions to the order of the main classes of the DDC, for example bringing together the class Language(700) together with the class for Literature(800). Committee members prepared draft classes and indexes and the first edition of the KDC was published in May 1964. Both the text and the index were written in Korean Hangul characters and Chinese characters. The second edition was published just two years later, in 1966, correcting errors and omissions found in the first edition. The third edition was published in 1980, maintaining the basic framework of the previous editions while expanding significantly. The fourth edition, published in 1996, made considerable changes, including increasing the number of representatives on the Classification Committee. The committee sought feedback from the library community and implemented revisions included in the recently published edition 20 of the DDC and edition 9 of the Nippon Decimal Classification. New policies applied to the fourth edition included principles suggesting the main classes should remain as static as possible, with focus shown to expanding classes devoted to technology and science. Likewise, many subject specialists were consulted for the publication of the fifth edition in 2009. The publication of the 23rd edition of the DDC in 2011 provided opportunity for a new revision of the KDC, and the sixth edition was published in July 2013. Greater numbers of classes provided number building capacity in the sixth edition, allowing for more specificity. == Description == The KDC classifies resources primarily by discipline, though some classes are collocated by subject. There are eight auxiliary mnemonic tables used to expand class numbers. The main classes of the KDC are the same as the main classes of the Dewey Decimal Classification, but four of those main classes are in a different order: Natural sciences (400), Technology and engineering (500), Arts (600), and Language 700. Though the structure is heavily influenced by the DDC, aspects of multiple library classifications have been invoked in the creation of the KDC, including the Library of Congress Classification for the arrangement of the social sciences (300), the Universal Decimal Classification for medical sciences (510), the KDCP for Korean and Oriental subjects, the Nippon Decimal Classification for those of Japan and Oriental subjects. === Classes of the KDC 6th edition === 000 General works 000 General works 010 Books, Bibliography 020 Library & information science 030 General encyclopedias 040 General collected essays 050 General serial publications 060 General societies 070 Newspapers, journalism 080 General collected works 090 Materials of province 100 Philosophy 100 Philosophy 110 Metaphysics 120 Epistemology, etc. 130 Systems of philosophy 140 Chinese classics 150 Oriental philosophy and thought 160 Western philosophy 170 Logic 180 Psychology 190 Ethics, moral philosophy 200 Religion 200 Religion 210 Comparative religion 220 Buddhism 230 Christian religion 240 Taoism 250 Chondoism 260 [Unassigned] 270 Hinduism, Brahmanism 280 Islam, Mohammedianism 290 Other religions 300 Social sciences 300 Social sciences 310 Statistics 320 Economics 330 Sociology and social problems 340 Political sciences 350 Public administration 360 Law 370 Education 380 Customs, Etiquette, Folklore 390 Military science 400 Natural sciences 400 Natural sciences 410 Mathematics 420 Physics 430 Chemistry 440 Astronomy 450 Earth science 460 Mineralogy 470 Life science 480 Botany 490 Zoological science 500 Technology 500 Technology 510 Medical science 520 Agriculture 530 Engineering, technology, etc. 540 Construction and architecture 550 Mechanical engineering 560 Electrical, comm. & electric engineering 570 Chemical engineering 580 Manufactures 590 Human ecology 600 Arts 600 Arts 610 [Unassigned] 620 Sculpture, plastic art 630 Crafts 640 Calligraphy 650 Painting, design 660 Photography 670 Music 680 Stage performance, museum arts 690 Amusements, sports & physical training 700 Language 700 Language 710 Korean language 720 Chinese language 730 Japanese & other Asian languages 740 English 750 German 760 French languages 770 Spanish languages & Portuguese language 780 Italian languages 790 Other languages 800 Literature 800 Literature 810 Korean literature 820 Chinese literature 830 Japanese & other Asian literature 840 English & American literature 850 German literature 860 French literature 870 Spanish & Portuguese literature 880 Italian literature 890 Other literatures 900 History 900 History 910 Asia 920 Europe 930 Africa 940 North America 950 South America 960 Oceania and Polar regions 970 [Unassigned] 980 Geography 990 Biography === Expansion tables === Table 1. Standard subdivisions Table 2. Geographic Areas Table 3. Korean geographic areas Table 4. Korean historical period Table 5. Languages Table 6. Subdivisions of individual languages Table 7. Subdivisions of individual literatures Table 8. Subdivisions of individual religions == Usage == KDC is used by a wide range of libraries within Korea, including by the National Library of Korea and most school and public libraries in the country, along with some university libraries, such as the one at Keimyung University.

  Read more →
• 

  AlphaStar (software)

  AlphaStar is an artificial intelligence (AI) software developed by DeepMind for playing the video game StarCraft II. It was unveiled to the public by name in January 2019. AlphaStar attained "Grandmaster" status in August 2019, considered a milestone for AI in video games at the time. == Background == Games created for humans are considered to have external validity as benchmarks of progress in artificial intelligence. IBM's chess engine Deep Blue (1997) and DeepMind's AlphaGo (2016) were considered major milestones; some argue that StarCraft would also be a major milestone, due to the game's "real-time play, partial observability, no single dominant strategy, complex rules that make it hard to build a fast forward model, and a particularly large and varied action space." Though difficult, StarCraft may still be tractable with current technology because "its rules are known and the world is discrete with only a few types of objects". StarCraft II is a popular fast-paced online real-time strategy game developed by Blizzard Entertainment. == History == DeepMind Technologies was founded in the UK in 2010. As early as 2011, founder Demis Hassabis called StarCraft "the next step up" after games like Go. DeepMind became a subsidiary of Google in 2014, after demonstrating self-learning bots with superhuman ability at a variety of Atari 2600 games. In February 2015, computer scientist Zachary Mason predicted Deepmind's research "leads to StarCraft in five or ten years". In March 2016, following AlphaGo's victory over Lee Sedol, a world champion Go player, Hassabis publicly mulled building an AI for StarCraft, citing it as a strategic game with incomplete information where, unlike Go, much of the "board" is invisible. A formal collaboration was announced at BlizzCon in November 2016, alongside a plan to release an open development environment for bots in Q1 of 2017. By 2017, DeepMind was experimenting with feeding StarCraft data into its software. In August 2017, DeepMind and Blizzard released development tools to assist in bot development, as well as data from 65,000 historical games. At the time, computer scientist and StarCraft tournament manager David Churchill estimated it would take five years for a bot to beat a human, but made the caveat that AlphaGo had beaten expectations. In Wired, tech journalist Tom Simonite stated "No one expects the robot to win anytime soon. But when it does, it will be a far greater achievement than DeepMind's conquest of Go." In December 2018, DeepMind's bot defeated professional player Grzegorz "MaNa" Komincz, 5-0. DeepMind announced the bot, named "AlphaStar", in January 2019. A journalist at Ars Technica and others argued that AlphaStar still had unfair advantages: "AlphaStar has the ability to make its clicks with surgical precision using an API, whereas human players are constrained by the mechanical limits of computer mice". AlphaStar also had a global view rather than being limited by the in-game camera. Furthermore, while there was a cap on the number of actions over a five-second window, AlphaStar was free to allocate its action quota unevenly across the window in order to launch superhuman bursts of activity at critical moments. DeepMind quickly retrained AlphaStar under more realistic constraints, and then lost a rematch with Komincz. Starting in July 2019, the new, constrained version of AlphaStar anonymously competed against players who "opted in" on the public 1v1 European multiplayer ladder. By the end of August 2019, AlphaStar had attained Grandmaster level, ranking among the top 0.2% of human players. == Algorithms == Unlike AlphaZero, AlphaStar initially learns to imitate the moves of the best players in its database of human vs. human games; this step is necessary to solve what DeepMind's Dave Silver calls "the exploration problem": discovering new strategies would otherwise be like finding a "needle in a haystack". Agents then play each other and deploy deep reinforcement learning. These main agents also learn by playing against suboptimal "exploiter agents" whose purpose is to expose weaknesses in the main agents. == Reactions == After his 5-0 defeat in December 2018, Komincz stated "I wasn't expecting the AI to be that good". Stuart Russell assessed that AlphaStar's 2018 victory required "a fair amount of problem-specific effort" and that general-purpose methods were "not quite ready for StarCraft". An article in Wired UK judged AlphaStar's new constraints, adopted for the July 2019 matches, to be "fair" this time around. StarCraft professional Raza "RazerBlader" Sekha stated AlphaStar was "impressive" but had its quirks, succumbing in one game to an unorthodox army composition made up of only air units. The UK's top player, Joshua "RiSky" Hayward, expressed some disappointment, saying AlphaStar "often didn't make the most efficient, strategic decisions". Professional Diego "Kelazhur" Schwimer called AlphaStar's play "unimaginably unusual; it really makes you question how much of StarCraft's diverse possibilities pro players have really explored". AlphaStar's opponents often did not realize they were playing a bot. Ian Sample, of The Guardian, called AlphaStar a "landmark achievement" for the field of AI. Churchill stated that he had previously seen bots that master one or two elements of StarCraft, but that AlphaStar was the first that can handle the game in its entirety. Gary Marcus expressed his continuing skepticism about deep learning, stating: "So far the field has struggled to take techniques like this out of the laboratory and game environments and into the real world, and I don't immediately see this result as progress in that direction". AI researcher Jon Dodge was surprised by AlphaStar, stating that he did not expect such a "superhuman" performance for "another couple of years"; in contrast, Churchill states "StarCraft is nowhere near being 'solved', and AlphaStar is not yet even close to playing at a world champion level". == Legacy == DeepMind argues that insights from AlphaStar might benefit robots, self-driving cars, and virtual assistants, which need to operate with "imperfectly observed information". Silver has indicated his lab "may rest at this point", rather than try to substantially improve AlphaStar. Silver himself argues that "AlphaStar has become the first AI system to reach the top tier of human performance in any professionally played e-sport on the full unrestricted game under professionally approved conditions... Ever since computers cracked Go, chess, and poker, the game of StarCraft has emerged, essentially by consensus from the community, as the next grand challenge for AI." Computer scientist Noel Sharkey argues, disapprovingly, that "military analysts will certainly be eyeing the successful AlphaStar real-time strategies as a clear example of the advantages of AI for battlefield planning". In contrast, Silver argues: "To say that this has any kind of military use is saying no more than to say an AI for chess could be used to lead to military applications".

  Read more →
• 

  Mittens (chess)

  Mittens is a chess engine developed by Chess.com. It was released on January 1, 2023, alongside four other engines, all of them given cat-related names. The engine became a viral sensation in the chess community due to exposure through content made by chess streamers and a social media marketing campaign, later contributing to record levels of traffic to the Chess.com website and causing issues with database scalability. Mittens was given a rating of one point by Chess.com, although it was evidently stronger than that. Various chess masters played matches against the engine, with players such as Hikaru Nakamura and Levy Rozman drawing and losing their games respectively. A month after its release, Mittens was removed from the website on February 1, as expected through Chess.com's monthly bot cycles. In December 2023, Mittens was brought back in a group of Chess.com's most popular bots of 2023. In January 2024, Mittens was removed again. == Release == Mittens was released on January 1, 2023, as part of a New Year event on Chess.com. It was one of five engines released, all with names related to cats. The other engines released were named Scaredy Cat, rated 800; Angry Cat, rated 1000; Mr. Grumpers, rated 1200 and Catspurrov (a pun on Garry Kasparov), rated 1400. As part of the announcement, a picture of each engine was accompanied by a short description of its character. The description given for Mittens suggested that the engine was hiding something, reading: Mittens likes chess… But how good is she? Of the five engines released, Mittens was by far the most popular. In December 2023, Chess.com re-released Mittens as part of a "best of 2023" group of chess bots made to showcase their most popular bots of the year. == Design == Mittens was conceptualized by Chess.com employee Will Whalen. Appearing as a kitten, Mittens trash talked its opponents with a selection of voice lines: these lines included quotes from J. Robert Oppenheimer, Vincent van Gogh and Friedrich Nietzsche, as well as the 1967 film Le Samouraï. The engine's "personality" was devised by a writing team headed by Sean Becker, and Marija Casic provided the engine's graphics. Chess.com did not disclose any information about the software running the engine. It may be based on Chess.com's Komodo Dragon 3 engine. Mittens' strategy was to slowly grind down an opponent, a tactic likened to the playing style of Anatoly Karpov. Becker stated that the design team believed it would be "way more demoralizing and funny" for the engine to play this way. According to Hikaru Nakamura, Mittens sometimes missed the best move (or winning positions). == Rating == On Chess.com, Mittens had a rating of one point. However, the engine's playing style and tactics showed that it was stronger than that; Mittens was able to beat or draw against many top human players. In an interview with CNN Business, Whalen stated that the idea behind giving Mittens a rating of one was to surprise its opponents, giving it the upper hand psychologically. Estimates of Mittens' true rating range from an Elo of 3200 to 3500, because of its ability to beat other engines of around that level. An upper bound of the engine's rating was found after Levy Rozman made Mittens play against Stockfish 15, a 3700 rated engine. Mittens lost the two games that the engines played. The range of Mittens' possible ratings was summarized by Dot Esports, who stated: It seems like she’s around the 3200–3500 rating range (in Chess.com terms, where the best human players, like Magnus Carlsen and Hikaru Nakamura, sport a 3000–3100 rating in the faster formats), as evidenced by her victories over the site’s otherwise strongest, 3200-rated bots, and her defeat to Stockfish 15, which is currently rated around 3700. == Games == Against human players, Mittens won over 99 percent of the millions of games it played. Chess players such as Hikaru Nakamura, Benjamin Bok, Levy Rozman and Eric Rosen struggled against Mittens; while Rozman and Rosen both lost against the engine, Nakamura and Bok were both able to make a draw. In particular, Nakamura's game against the engine lasted 166 moves; he was playing as White. Bok, Benjamin Finegold and Rozman later went on to win against Mittens, the latter with engine assistance from Stockfish. Magnus Carlsen publicly refused to play the engine, calling it a "transparent marketing trick" and "a soulless computer". Against other chess engines, Mittens participated in the Chess.com Computer Chess Championship as a side act. In the competition, Mittens played 150 games against an engine named after the film M3GAN and won overall with a score of 81.5 to 68.5. This equated to 54 percent of the games played. During the event, an estimate of Mittens' rating was made at 3515 points. == Impact == Mittens went viral in the chess community due to its concept and design: according to an announcement by Chess.com, a combined total of 120 million games were played against the cat engines over the course of January, with around 40 million played against Mittens. The popularity of the engine was helped by the social media exposure created by Chess.com. This included creating an official Twitter account to promote the engine. Chess streamers like Rozman and Nakamura helped cultivate this by creating content around the engine. A video by Nakamura entitled "Mittens the chess bot will make you quit chess" gained over 3.5 million views on YouTube. On January 11, Chess.com reported issues with database scalability due to record levels of traffic: 40 percent more games had been played on Chess.com in January 2023 than any other month since the website's release. According to The Wall Street Journal, the popularity spike was more than the similar surge following the release of Netflix's The Queen's Gambit. The popularity of Mittens was cited by Chess.com as a reason for this instability. The problems continued throughout January; Chess.com stated that they would have to upgrade their servers and invest more in cloud computing to solve the problems caused by the website's popularity surge. On February 1, 2023, Mittens and the other cat engines were removed from the computer section of Chess.com. They were replaced with five new engines themed around artificial intelligence. A tweet was posted on the Mittens's Twitter account after the engine's removal, reading "This is just the beginning. Goodbye for now."

  Read more →
• 

  Tea (app)

  Tea, officially Tea Dating Advice, is a dating surveillance mobile phone application that allows women to post personal data about men they are interested in or are currently dating. Founded by Sean Cook, the app rose to prominence in July 2025 after it was the subject of three major data leaks in July and August 2025. It was removed from Apple's App Store in October 2025, but remains available on the Google Play Store. == History == The app enables its users to upload, view, and comment on photos of men, check men's public records, and perform image searches. It also provides the ability to rate and review men, as well as a group chat function. The app uses artificial intelligence to verify that the user is a woman through facial analysis and other personal information to preserve the app as a women-only space. Users are required to submit their photo and an ID to access the app. The company that created the app was founded by businessman and tech capitalist Sean Cook, who stated in July 2025 that he was inspired to create the app because of his mother's experiences from online dating. According to the company, users remain anonymous, and the requirement to upload an ID was removed in 2023. An August 2025 investigation by 404 Media suggested that much of the information given by Cook on the historical background of the company was inaccurate. In July 2025, private messages, other personally identifying information, and approximately 72,000 images were leaked via 4chan. A further 1.1 million private messages were subsequently leaked using a separate security vulnerability; these included intimate conversations about controversial topics such as adultery and other forms of infidelity to their partners, discussions of abortion, phone numbers, meeting locations, and other confidential communications. The app's publishers subsequently revoked the ability to private message users in the app. Shortly after, the app was hidden from search on Android and an interactive, unverified map was also created of those in the files. By 7 August 2025, ten class action lawsuits had been filed. A further leak was reported later that month. Proponents have praised the app as an aid for women's safety by helping them check men for adultery, catfishing, criminal convictions and other "red flag" behaviors. Critics have described the app as a doxing tool and a violation of privacy, an opportunity for defamation against innocent individuals, and a witch hunt. Cook has stated that the company's legal team receives about three legal threats per day. Another mobile app, called TeaOnHer, was created in response of the app’s popularity. It was described as the male version of the Tea app. The app also reported a data breach in August 2025. In October 2025, Apple removed the app from their app store, telling journalists that the removal was due to a failure to meet company terms regarding content moderation and user privacy. Apple also mentioned an excessive amount of complaints, including allegations that the personal information of minors was being shared. The app remains on the Google Play Store.

  Read more →
• 

  BRFplus

  BRFplus (Business Rule Framework plus) is a business rule management system (BRMS) offered by SAP AG. BRFplus is part of the SAP NetWeaver ABAP stack. Therefore, all SAP applications that are based on SAP NetWeaver can access BRFplus within the boundaries of an SAP system. However, it is also possible to generate web services so that BRFplus rules can also be offered as a service in a SOA landscape, regardless of the software platform used by the service consumers. BRFplus development started as a supporting tool that was part of SAP Business ByDesign, an ERP solution targeted at small and medium size companies. By that time, the tool was called "Formula and Derivation Tool" (FDT). Later on, it was decided to maintain BRFplus on those codelines that serve as the basis for SAP Business Suite. With that, business rules that have been created for Business ByDesign can easily be taken over in a full-size SAP system where they are ready for use without any changes. == Overview == BRFplus offers a unified modeling and runtime environment for business rules that addresses both technical users (programmers, system administrators) as well as business users who take care of operational business processes (like procurement, bidding, tax form validation, etc.). The different requirements and usage scenarios of the different target groups can be covered with the help of the SAP authorization system and a user interface that can be individually customized. Being integrated into SAP NetWeaver, BRFplus-based applications can look at, and model, business rules from a strictly business-oriented perspective, rather than starting with the underlying technical artifacts. This is because the integration allows for direct access to the business objects available in the SAP dictionary (like customer, supplier, material, bill, etc.). In addition to the predefined expression types (decision table, decision tree, formula, database access, loops, etc.) and actions (sending e-mails, triggering a workflow, etc.), BRFplus can be extended by custom expression types. Also, direct calls of function modules as well as ABAP OO class methods are supported so that the entire range of the ABAP programming language is available for solving business tasks. BRFplus comes with an optional versioning mechanism. Versioning can be switched on and off for individual objects as well as for entire applications. Versioned business rules are needed in certain use cases for legal reasons, but they also allow for simulating the system behavior as it would have been at a particular point in time. Once the rule objects are in a consistent state and active, the system automatically generates ABAP OO classes that encapsulate the functional scope of the underlying rule object. This is done on an on-demand base and speeds up processing. The execution of functions as well as of single expressions can be simulated. The processing log of the simulation is useful for checking the implementation and for investigating problems. BRFplus applications can be exported and imported as an XML file. This is an easy way of creating a data backup. XML files can also be used for deploying rule applications throughout the company. == Main object types == === Application === The application object serves as a container for all the BRFplus objects that have been assembled to solve a particular business task. It is possible to define certain default settings on application level that are inherited by all objects that are created in the scope of that application. === Function === A function is used to connect a business application with the rule processing framework of BRFplus. The calling business application passes input values to the function which are then processed by the expressions and rulesets that are associated with the called function. The calculated result is then returned to the calling business application. === Expression types and action types === Boolean BRMS Connector Case Database Lookup Decision Table Decision Tree Formula Function Call Loop Procedure Call Random Number Search Tree Step Sequence Value Range1 XSL Transformation === Ruleset === A ruleset is a container for an arbitrary number of rule objects which in turn carry out the necessary calculations with the help of assigned expressions and actions. Instead of assigning an expression to a function, it is also possible to assign any number of rulesets to a function. When the function is called, all assigned rulesets are subsequently processed. === Data objects === BRFplus supports elementary data objects (text, number, boolean, time point, amount, quantity) as well as structures and tables. Structures can be nested. For all types of data objects it is possible to reference data objects that reside in the data dictionary of the backend system. With that, a BRFplus data object does not only inherit the type definition of the referenced object but can also access associated data like domain value lists or object documentation. === Other objects === With catalogs, it is possible to define business-specific subsets of the rule objects that reside in the system. This is helpful for hiding the complexity of a rule system, thus improving usability. Object filters are used by system administrators to ensure that for selected users, only a predefined subset of object types is visible. This is useful to enforce access rights as well as modeling policies. == Other BRM solutions offered by SAP == BRFplus is positioned as the successor product of an older business rule solution known as BRF (Business Rule Framework). For a longer transition phase, both solutions exist in parallel. However, an increasing number of SAP applications that used to be based on BRF are migrating to BRFplus. While BRFplus supports business rules for applications based on the SAP NetWeaver ABAP stack, SAP is offering another product named SAP NetWeaver Business Rules Management (BRM). BRM supports business rule modeling for the SAP NetWeaver Java stack. Both products do not compete. They are available in parallel and can be used in a collaborative approach to deal with use cases where both technology stacks are used in parallel. BRFplus comes with a special expression type that helps bridging the gap between the two different technologies. == Availability == BRFplus has been delivered to the public with SAP NetWeaver 7.0 Enhancement Package 1 for the first time. Being part of SAP NetWeaver, the usage of BRFplus is covered by the "SAP NetWeaver Foundation for Third Party Applications" license, with no additional costs. == Literature == Carsten Ziegler, Thomas Albrecht: BRFplus – Business Rule Management for ABAP Applications. Galileo Press 2011. ISBN 978-1-59229-293-6

  Read more →
• 

  Strategic Computing Initiative

  The United States government's Strategic Computing Initiative funded research into advanced computer hardware and artificial intelligence from 1983 to 1993. The initiative was designed to support various projects that were required to develop machine intelligence in a prescribed ten-year time frame, from chip design and manufacture, computer architecture to artificial intelligence software. The Department of Defense spent a total of $1 billion on the project. The inspiration for the program was Japan's fifth generation computer project, an enormous initiative that set aside billions for research into computing and artificial intelligence. As with Sputnik in 1957, the American government saw the Japanese project as a challenge to its technological dominance. The British government also funded a program of their own around the same time, known as Alvey, and a consortium of U.S. companies funded another similar project, the Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation. The goal of SCI, and other contemporary projects, was nothing less than full machine intelligence. "The machine envisioned by SC", according to Alex Roland and Philip Shiman, "would run ten billion instructions per second to see, hear, speak, and think like a human. The degree of integration required would rival that achieved by the human brain, the most complex instrument known to man." The initiative was conceived as an integrated program, similar to the Apollo moon program, where different subsystems would be created by various companies and academic projects and eventually brought together into a single integrated system. Roland and Shiman wrote that "While most research programs entail tactics or strategy, SC boasted grand strategy, a master plan for an entire campaign." The project was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and directed by the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO). By 1985 it had spent $100 million, and 92 projects were underway at 60 institutions: half in industry, half in universities and government labs. Robert Kahn, who directed IPTO in those years, provided the project with its early leadership and inspiration. Clint Kelly managed the SC Initiative for three years and developed many of the specific application programs for DARPA, such as the Autonomous Land Vehicle. By the late 1980s, it was clear that the project would fall short of realizing the hoped-for levels of machine intelligence. Program insiders pointed to issues with integration, organization, and communication. When Jack Schwarz ascended to the leadership of IPTO in 1987, he cut funding to artificial intelligence research (the software component) "deeply and brutally", "eviscerating" the program (wrote Pamela McCorduck). Schwarz felt that DARPA should focus its funding only on those technologies which showed the most promise. In his words, DARPA should "surf", rather than "dog paddle", and he felt strongly AI was not "the next wave". The project was superseded in the 1990s by the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative and then by the Advanced Simulation and Computing Program. These later programs did not include artificial general intelligence as a goal, but instead focused on supercomputing for large scale simulation, such as atomic bomb simulations. The Strategic Computing Initiative of the 1980s is distinct from the 2015 National Strategic Computing Initiative—the two are unrelated. == Results == Although the program failed to meet its goal of high-level machine intelligence, it did meet some of its specific technical objectives, for example those of autonomous land navigation. The Autonomous Land Vehicle program and its sister Navlab project at Carnegie Mellon University, in particular, laid the scientific and technical foundation for many of the driverless vehicle programs that came after it, such as the Demo II and III programs (ALV being Demo I), Perceptor, and the DARPA Grand Challenge. The use of video cameras plus laser scanners and inertial navigation units pioneered by the SCI ALV program form the basis of almost all commercial driverless car developments today. It also helped to advance the state of the art of computer hardware to a considerable degree. On the software side, the initiative funded development of the Dynamic Analysis and Replanning Tool (DART), a program that handled logistics using artificial intelligence techniques. This was a huge success, saving the Department of Defense billions during Desert Storm. Introduced in 1991, DART had by 1995 offset the monetary equivalent of all funds DARPA had channeled into AI research for the previous 30 years combined.

  Read more →