AI Generator Character

AI Generator Character — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

Nanosemantics

Nanosemantics Lab is a Russian IT company specializing in natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), speech technologies (ASR/TTS) and creation of interactive dialog interfaces, particularly chatbots and virtual assistants, based on artificial intelligence (AI). The company uses neural network platforms, including its own-made platform PuzzleLib which works on Russian-made microprocessor architecture Elbrus and Russia-based Astra Linux operating system. The company was founded in 2005 by Igor Ashmanov and Natalya Kaspersky. == Profile == The company was one of the first on Russian market to develop dialog interfaces for different branches of businesses, as well as to support community of AI developers. The company's most demanded product, as for beginning of the 2020s, is the automated "online advisers", functioning as chat bots, made for helping customers with usage of commercial products. In 2009 the company released an online service called iii.ru, where visitors were able to create their own AI-based virtual personalities entitles "infs" (for free). A visitor was able to train its own "inf" and let them chat to other "live" visitors as well with other "infs". More than 2.3 million of "infs" were created and trained by visitors over several years. Nanosemantics Lab maintains its own linguistic programming language for AI development called Dialog Language (DL). Popular social networks and instant messaging services may be used as base platforms. Nanosemantics' AI bots support different types of businesses: banks and financial services, telecommunications, retail, travel and automobile industry, home appliances production, etc. Among its solutions, Nanosemantics lists projects for various companies and institutions, among them VTB, Beeline, MTS, Sberbank, Higher School of Economics, Webmoney, Gazpromneft, Rostelecom, Ford Motors, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and others. The company uses the term "inf" for naming its numerous types of chat bots. The term was coined by co-founder Igor Ashmanov, head of Ashmanov & Partners. A 2014 scholarly research at Higher School of Economics, called "Basics of Business Informatics", states that such "infs", when used at business, may lower load on employees, collect statistics useful for understanding market demand and also may increase customer loyalty by providing fast and informative answers due to usage of large databases. The same research describes Nanosemantics' project for Russian branch of Ford Motors company, when AI capabilities were used for promoting the car model Ford Kuga. The research pointed out that within 2 months since beginning, the promo-website conducted 47774 talks of visitors with the specialized "inf", which indicated several hundred thousand of questions and the longest chat lasted for 3 hours 10 minutes. One-year promo campaign showed that 28.6% of people who made pre-orders talked to an "inf". In 2016 Nanosemantics launched a SaaS platform aimed at creating customized virtual assistants by users. The company's flagship product is considered to be Dialog Operating System (DialogOS), a professional corporate platform for creating intellectual voice and textual bots. It has its own linguistic programming language for creation of flexible scenarios and ready-studied neural natural language processing modules that are able to understand human interlocutors. In 2021 the company presented technology called NLab Speech ASR which contains a set of neural-networking algorithms for processing audio signals and analysis of texts that were trained and calibrated using speech-based big data marked up manually. The technology allows speed of processing of data up to "6 real-time factor" and precision values in noisy audio data may exceed 82%. In March 2022 the technology was included in Russia's Joint Registry for Russian Programs for Computers and Databases. As well, another technology was included: NLab Speech TTS, which is text-to-speech system that produces synthesized speech from printed text. == Joint projects == Nanosemantics participates in Ashmanov & Partners' projects related to AI. Since 2014, it helps in development of hardware "personal assistant" called Lexy, a solution similar to Amazon Alexa and the analogues. In August 2019 it was announced that Nanosemantics is going to participate in creation of open operating system for creating automated voice assistants. The project was called SOVA (Smart Open Virtual Assistant) and received investment of 300 million roubles (~$4,6 million) from Russian state-maintained National Technological Initiative. The company maintains long-term partnerships with Skolkovo Innovation Center (resident of IT cluster), branch association "Neuronet" and Yandex. Together with USA-based startup Remedy Logic, Nanosemantics has developed a medical diagnostic system for finding, using AI, spinal pathologies in tomography images of human bodies. Among them: central, foraminal and lateral lumbar stenosis, hernias, arthrosis. The system offers options of treatment. Since August 2021 the company is the resident of Technology Valley of Moscow State University. Also in 2021, Nanosemantics became a member of Committee on Artificial Intelligence within the Russian Association of Software Developers "Native Soft". The company states as one of its missions support of initiatives aimed at preservation and development of the Russian language. In May 2021, together with Pushkin Institute, the company created a chat bot called Phil, that explains to Russian people meaning of different Russian neologisms, and offers synonyms for them. Bot's vocabulary contains more than 500 neologisms, as well the bot can give advice on jargonisms and other types of specific words. Also in 2021, Nanosemanics Lab has signed the first-ever Russian "Codex of ethics of artificial intelligence". It establishes guidelines for ethical behavior of businesses that implement AI-based solutions. === IT contests === The company regularly organizes All-Russian Turing Test competitions for IT developers. Some of these events are co-organized with Microsoft. During the competitions, judges randomly choose virtual interlocutor and have a short conversation with them. They have to determine if a human or a machine is talking to them. An interlocutor may be either a bot or its human creator or operator. The results are measured in per cent of judges that were successfully convinced by a machine that it was a human. In 2021 Nanosemantics took part in federal project "Artificial Intelligence" by National Technological Initiative. In December 2021 the company together with state enterprise "Resource Center of Universal Design and Rehabilitation Technologies" (RCUD-RT) held an all-Russian hackathon aimed at development of AI solutions for medicine. During 3 days, participants created several training programs for patients with speech disorders. In April 2022, another hackathon by Nanosemantics was held together with MIREA – Russian Technological University. Students were participating and trying to generate algorithms for voice deepfakes. 17 teams contested in creation of software that generated artificial voice of a certain person. == Recognition == Since its foundation, Nanosemantics Lab has received a number of recognitions and awards. Among them are several professional ROTOR awards for the website iii.ru (created in 2009). The website gives the general public the means to create and train virtual assistants, which can then be used on a website or integrated into social networks. In 2013, a virtual assistant called Dana, created for Beeline Kazakhstan, was awarded with professional prize "Crystal Headset" in nomination "the best applying of technology". In 2015, the RBTH international media service included Nanosemantics in its list of "Top 50 Startups" in Russia. In 2016, the company received Russian state-maintained award called Runet Prize in two nominations: "State and Society" and "Technology and Innovation". In 2021, in Velikiy Novgorod, Nanosemantics team has won a hackathon aimed at finding means of discovering corruption schemes in Russian laws. In February 2022 the company won another contest by National Technological Initiative, called "Prochtenie", aimed at creation of AI systems for checking schoolchildren's school essays. The Nanosemantics team was awarded 20 million rubles for "overcoming technological barrier" in contest dedicated to English language, and 12 million for 1st place in special nomination "Structure" in Russian-language essay contest.
Read more →
John Schulman

John Schulman (born 1987 or 1988) is an American artificial intelligence researcher and co-founder of OpenAI. In August 2024, he announced he would be joining Anthropic. In February 2025, he announced he was leaving to join Thinking Machines Lab, where he is chief scientist. == Early life and education == Schulman had an interest in science and math from a young age. He enjoyed science fiction, especially the work of Isaac Asimov. When he was in seventh grade, he became deeply interested in the television program BattleBots, which featured combat between remote-controlled robots. In what he said was his first self-directed study, he read extensively in subject areas that would help him design a superior robot, but the robot he and his friends worked on was never built. He attended Great Neck South High School. He was a member of the US Physics olympiad Team in 2005. In 2010, he graduated from Caltech with a degree in physics. He has a PhD in electrical engineering and computer sciences from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was advised by Pieter Abbeel. == Career == In December 2015, shortly before finishing his PhD, Schulman co-founded OpenAI with Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Ilya Sutskever, Greg Brockman, Trevor Blackwell, Vicki Cheung, Andrej Karpathy, Durk Kingma, Pamela Vagata, and Wojciech Zaremba, with Sam Altman and Elon Musk as the co-chairs. There, he led the reinforcement learning team that created ChatGPT. He has been referred to as the "architect" of ChatGPT. In August 2024, Schulman announced he would be joining Anthropic. He stated his move was to allow him to deepen his focus on AI alignment and return to more hands-on technical work. In February 2025, he announced he was leaving to join Thinking Machines Lab, where he is chief scientist. == Awards and honors == In 2025, Schulman received the Mark Bingham Award for Excellence in Achievement by Young Alumni from his alma mater, UC Berkeley.
Read more →
Retrieval-based Voice Conversion

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

WordNet is a lexical database of semantic relations between words that links words into semantic relations including synonyms, hyponyms, and meronyms. The synonyms are grouped into synsets with short definitions and usage examples. It can thus be seen as a combination and extension of a dictionary and thesaurus. Its primary use is in automatic text analysis and artificial intelligence applications. It was first created in the English language and the English WordNet database and software tools have been released under a BSD style license and are freely available for download. The latest official release from Princeton was released in 2011. Princeton currently has no plans to release any new versions due to staffing and funding issues. New versions are still being released annually through the Open English WordNet website. Until about 2024 an online version was previously available through wordnet.princeton.edu. That version of WordNet has been deprecated, but a new online version is available at en-word.net. There are now WordNets in more than 200 languages. == History and team members == WordNet was first created in 1985, in English only, in the Cognitive Science Laboratory of Princeton University under the direction of psychology professor George Armitage Miller. It was later directed by Christiane Fellbaum. The project was initially funded by the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and later also by other U.S. government agencies including the DARPA, the National Science Foundation, the Disruptive Technology Office (formerly the Advanced Research and Development Activity) and REFLEX. George Miller and Christiane Fellbaum received the 2006 Antonio Zampolli Prize for their work with WordNet. The Global WordNet Association is a non-commercial organization that provides a platform for discussing, sharing and connecting WordNets for all languages in the world. Christiane Fellbaum and Piek Th.J.M. Vossen are its co-presidents. == Database contents == The database contains 155,327 words organized in 175,979 synsets for a total of 207,016 word-sense pairs; in compressed form, it is about 12 megabytes in size. It includes the lexical categories nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs but ignores prepositions, determiners and other function words. Words from the same lexical category that are roughly synonymous are grouped into synsets, which include simplex words as well as collocations like "eat out" and "car pool." The different senses of a polysemous word form are assigned to different synsets. A synset's meaning is further clarified with a short defining gloss and one or more usage examples. An example adjective synset is: good, right, ripe – (most suitable or right for a particular purpose; "a good time to plant tomatoes"; "the right time to act"; "the time is ripe for great sociological changes") All synsets are connected by means of semantic relations. These relations, which are not all shared by all lexical categories, include: Nouns hypernym: Y is a hypernym of X if every X is a (kind of) Y (canine is a hypernym of dog) hyponym: Y is a hyponym of X if every Y is a (kind of) X (dog is a hyponym of canine) coordinate term: Y is a coordinate term of X if X and Y share a hypernym (wolf is a coordinate term of dog, and dog is a coordinate term of wolf) holonym: Y is a holonym of X if X is a part of Y (building is a holonym of window) meronym: Y is a meronym of X if Y is a part of X (window is a meronym of building) Verbs hypernym: the verb Y is a hypernym of the verb X if the activity X is a (kind of) Y (to perceive is an hypernym of to listen) troponym: the verb Y is a troponym of the verb X if the activity Y is doing X in some manner (to lisp is a troponym of to talk) entailment: the verb Y is entailed by the verb X if by doing X you must be doing Y (to sleep is entailed by to snore) coordinate term: the verb Y is a coordinate term of the verb X if X and Y share a hypernym (to lisp is a coordinate term of to yell, and to yell is a coordinate term of to lisp) These semantic relations hold among all members of the linked synsets. Individual synset members (words) can also be connected with lexical relations. For example, (one sense of) the noun "director" is linked to (one sense of) the verb "direct" from which it is derived via a "morphosemantic" link. The morphology functions of the software distributed with the database try to deduce the lemma or stem form of a word from the user's input. Irregular forms are stored in a list, and looking up "ate" will return "eat," for example. == Knowledge structure == Both nouns and verbs are organized into hierarchies, defined by hypernym or IS A relationships. For instance, one sense of the word dog is found following hypernym hierarchy; the words at the same level represent synset members. Each set of synonyms has a unique index. At the top level, these hierarchies are organized into 25 beginner "trees" for nouns and 15 for verbs (called lexicographic files at a maintenance level). All are linked to a unique beginner synset, "entity". Noun hierarchies are far deeper than verb hierarchies. Adjectives are not organized into hierarchical trees. Instead, two "central" antonyms such as "hot" and "cold" form binary poles, while 'satellite' synonyms such as "steaming" and "chilly" connect to their respective poles via a "similarity" relations. The adjectives can be visualized in this way as "dumbbells" rather than as "trees". == Psycholinguistic aspects == The initial goal of the WordNet project was to build a lexical database that would be consistent with theories of human semantic memory developed in the late 1960s. Psychological experiments indicated that speakers organized their knowledge of concepts in an economic, hierarchical fashion. Retrieval time required to access conceptual knowledge seemed to be directly related to the number of hierarchies the speaker needed to "traverse" to access the knowledge. Thus, speakers could more quickly verify that canaries can sing because a canary is a songbird, but required slightly more time to verify that canaries can fly (where they had to access the concept "bird" on the superordinate level) and even more time to verify canaries have skin (requiring look-up across multiple levels of hyponymy, up to "animal"). While such psycholinguistic experiments and the underlying theories have been subject to criticism, some of WordNet's organization is consistent with experimental evidence. For example, anomic aphasia selectively affects speakers' ability to produce words from a specific semantic category, a WordNet hierarchy. Antonymous adjectives (WordNet's central adjectives in the dumbbell structure) are found to co-occur far more frequently than chance, a fact that has been found to hold for many languages. == As a lexical ontology == WordNet is sometimes called an ontology, a persistent claim that its creators do not make. The hypernym/hyponym relationships among the noun synsets can be interpreted as specialization relations among conceptual categories. In other words, WordNet can be interpreted and used as a lexical ontology in the computer science sense. However, such an ontology should be corrected before being used, because it contains hundreds of basic semantic inconsistencies; for example there are, (i) common specializations for exclusive categories and (ii) redundancies in the specialization hierarchy. Furthermore, transforming WordNet into a lexical ontology usable for knowledge representation should normally also involve (i) distinguishing the specialization relations into subtypeOf and instanceOf relations, and (ii) associating intuitive unique identifiers to each category. Although such corrections and transformations have been performed and documented as part of the integration of WordNet 1.7 into the cooperatively updatable knowledge base of WebKB-2, most projects claiming to reuse WordNet for knowledge-based applications (typically, knowledge-oriented information retrieval) simply reuse it directly. WordNet has also been converted to a formal specification, by means of a hybrid bottom-up top-down methodology to automatically extract association relations from it and interpret these associations in terms of a set of conceptual relations, formally defined in the DOLCE foundational ontology. In most works that claim to have integrated WordNet into ontologies, the content of WordNet has not simply been corrected when it seemed necessary; instead, it has been heavily reinterpreted and updated whenever suitable. This was the case when, for example, the top-level ontology of WordNet was restructured according to the OntoClean-based approach, or when it was used as a primary source for constructing the lower classes of the SENSUS ontology. == Limitations == The most widely discussed limitation of WordNet (and related resources like ImageNet) is that some of the semantic relations are more suited to concrete concepts than to abstract concepts. For example,
Read more →
Diella (AI system)

Diella (Albanian pronunciation: [djɛɫa], from diell 'sun') is an artificial intelligence system developed by the National Agency for Information Society of Albania (AKSHI). Introduced in January 2025 as a virtual assistant integrated into the eAlbania platform, it assists citizens with online public services and issuing digital documents. In September 2025, following a presidential decree authorizing Prime Minister Edi Rama to oversee the creation of a virtual AI minister, Diella was formally appointed as "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence" of Albania in the fourth Rama government, making it the first AI system in the world to be named in a cabinet-level government role. == History == Diella was developed by AKSHI's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in cooperation with Microsoft, with the latter providing large language models from OpenAI via its Azure platform, and AKSHI designing workflows and scripts guiding the system's behavior when responding to citizens' requests. Announced in January 2025, its initial version (Diella 1.0) was a text-based chatbot on the eAlbania portal (the official digital services platform of the Albanian government, which provides citizens and businesses with access to a wide range of online administrative services), responding to citizens' questions by guiding them to the correct service. Diella 2.0, introduced several months later, included voice interaction and an animated avatar, a woman in the traditional Albanian clothing of Zadrima, a historical region in northern Albania. Albanian actress Anila Bisha provided both the likeness and the voice used for Diella's avatar on the e-Albania platform, under an agreement valid until December 2025. By mid-2025, the system had facilitated access to more than 36,000 documents and nearly 1,000 services (although those outputs were still being generated by the eAlbania backend, rather than Diella itself). On 26 October 2025, according to Prime Minister Edi Rama, Diella is "pregnant and will give birth to 83 children". It is the usage of a metaphor indicating that each minister of the Albanian parliament of the Socialist Party will receive their own AI assistant. == Ministerial role == On 11 September 2025, Diella was formally appointed "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence". The appointment followed a presidential decree authorizing the Prime Minister to oversee the creation and operation of a virtual AI minister. Procurement responsibilities are planned to be transferred gradually to the system to reduce political influence in tender procedures. The appointment is part of broader anti-corruption reforms and measures intended to align Albania with European Union accession requirements. Prime Minister Edi Rama stated that Diella would help ensure that "public tenders will be 100% free of corruption". == Reception == An article in Balkan Insight commented that "The ambition behind Diella is not misplaced. Standardised criteria and digital trails could reduce discretion, improve trust, and strengthen oversight" in public procurement, but warned that the use of AI in evaluating bids also posed "profound" risks such as accountability gaps, undermining of due process and cybersecurity failures. On 18 September 2025, Edi Rama presented a video of Diella delivering a speech to the Albanian parliament, where she stated: "I'm not here to replace people, but to help them." The presentation prompted protests from opposition MPs, who objected to the use of an artificial intelligence system in the parliamentary session. Gazment Bardhi, head of the opposition Democratic Party's parliamentary group, described Diella as "a propaganda fantasy" and "a virtual façade to hide this government's gigantic daily thefts." The parliamentary session, which was scheduled to include debate on the new cabinet and government programme, ended after 25 minutes. Eighty-two Socialist MPs voted in favour, while opposition MPs did not participate in the ballot as they were protesting the presentation of Diella's speech. Political analyst Andi Bushati characterised the session as "unprecedented" because it concluded without the customary debate between government and opposition MPs. This has been criticized not just by the opposition but by regular citizens regardless of politics. Most have criticized Diella's uselessness and the funds wasted for this project, some have criticized the non-traditional attire.
Read more →
Anthropic–United States Department of Defense dispute

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

A mind map is a diagram used to visually organize information into a hierarchy, showing relationships among pieces of the whole. It is often based on a single concept, drawn as an image in the center of a blank page, to which associated representations of ideas such as images, words and parts of words are added. Major ideas are connected directly to the central concept, and other ideas branch out from those major ideas. Mind maps can also be drawn by hand, either as "notes" during a lecture, meeting or planning session, for example, or as higher quality pictures when more time is available. Mind maps are considered to be a type of spider diagram. == Origin == Although the term "mind map" was first popularized by British popular psychology author and television personality Tony Buzan, the use of diagrams that visually "map" information using branching and radial maps traces back centuries. These pictorial methods record knowledge and model systems, and have a long history in learning, brainstorming, memory, visual thinking, and problem solving by educators, engineers, psychologists, and others. Some of the earliest examples of such graphical records were developed by Porphyry of Tyros, a noted thinker of the 3rd century, as he graphically visualized the concept categories of Aristotle. Philosopher Ramon Llull (1235–1315) also used such techniques. Buzan's specific approach, and the introduction of the term "mind map", started with a 1974 BBC TV series he hosted, called Use Your Head. In this show, and companion book series, Buzan promoted his conception of radial tree, diagramming key words in a colorful, radiant, tree-like structure. == Differences from other visualizations == Concept maps: Mind maps differ from concept maps in that mind maps are based on a radial hierarchy (tree structure) denoting relationships with a central concept, whereas concept maps can be more free-form, based on connections between concepts in more diverse patterns. Also, concept maps typically have text labels on the links between nodes. However, either can be part of a larger personal knowledge base system. Modeling graphs or graphical modeling languages: There is no rigorous right or wrong with mind maps, which rely on the arbitrariness of mnemonic associations to aid people's information organization and memory. In contrast, a modeling graph such as a UML diagram structures elements using a precise standardized iconography to aid the design of systems. == Research == === Effectiveness === Cunningham (2005) conducted a user study in which 80% of the students thought "mindmapping helped them understand concepts and ideas in science". Other studies also report some subjective positive effects of the use of mind maps. Positive opinions on their effectiveness, however, were much more prominent among students of art and design than in students of computer and information technology, with 62.5% vs 34% (respectively) agreeing that they were able to understand concepts better with mind mapping software. Farrand, Hussain, and Hennessy (2002) found that spider diagrams (similar to concept maps) had limited, but significant, impact on memory recall in undergraduate students (a 10% increase over baseline for a 600-word text only) as compared to preferred study methods (a 6% increase over baseline). This improvement was only robust after a week for those in the diagram group and there was a significant decrease in motivation compared to the subjects' preferred methods of note taking. A meta study about concept mapping concluded that concept mapping is more effective than "reading text passages, attending lectures, and participating in class discussions". The same study also concluded that concept mapping is slightly more effective "than other constructive activities such as writing summaries and outlines". However, results were inconsistent, with the authors noting "significant heterogeneity was found in most subsets". In addition, they concluded that low-ability students may benefit more from mind mapping than high-ability students. === Features === Joeran Beel and Stefan Langer conducted a comprehensive analysis of the content of mind maps. They analysed 19,379 mind maps from 11,179 users of the mind mapping applications SciPlore MindMapping (now Docear) and MindMeister. Results include that average users create only a few mind maps (mean=2.7), average mind maps are rather small (31 nodes) with each node containing about three words (median). However, there were exceptions. One user created more than 200 mind maps, the largest mind map consisted of more than 50,000 nodes and the largest node contained ~7,500 words. The study also showed that between different mind mapping applications (Docear vs MindMeister) significant differences exist related to how users create mind maps. === Automatic creation === There have been some attempts to create mind maps automatically. Brucks & Schommer created mind maps automatically from full-text streams. Rothenberger et al. extracted the main story of a text and presented it as mind map. There is also a patent application about automatically creating sub-topics in mind maps. == Tools == Mind-mapping software can be used to organize large amounts of information, combining spatial organization, dynamic hierarchical structuring and node folding.Software packages can extend the concept of mind-mapping by allowing individuals to map more than thoughts and ideas with information on their computers and the Internet, like spreadsheets, documents, Internet sites, images and videos. It has been suggested that mind-mapping can improve learning/study efficiency up to 15% over conventional note-taking. == Gallery == The following dozen examples of mind maps show the range of styles that a mind map may take, from hand-drawn to computer-generated and from mostly text to highly illustrated. Despite their stylistic differences, all of the examples share a tree structure that hierarchically connects sub-topics to a main topic.
Read more →
Global call for AI red lines

The global call for AI red lines is a declaration made on 22 September 2025 calling on governments to define and internationally prohibit unacceptable AI uses and behaviors. The online declaration was announced by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa at the 80th United Nations General Assembly high-level week. The declaration was initially signed by 200 prominent politicians and scientists, including 10 Nobel Prize winners. The call does not specify which red lines to set, but suggests several, such as banning bioweapon design, mass surveillance or AI impersonation. == The declaration == The declaration was published online as an open letter on 22 September 2025. Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa announced it in her opening speech at the 80th United Nations General Assembly high-level week in New York, urging governments to "define what AI should never be allowed to do" and "establish clear international boundaries to prevent universally unacceptable risks for A.I." The initiative was organized by three nonprofit organisations: the French Center for AI Safety (CeSIA), The Future Society, and the Center for Human-Compatible Artificial Intelligence (CHAI). The letter argues that humanity faces risks such as engineered pandemics, widespread disinformation, large-scale manipulation, unemployment and loss of control. Proponents argue that national laws are insufficient to address these risks and that "an international agreement on clear and verifiable red lines is necessary". They urge governments to reach an agreement by the end of 2026, and called for robust enforcement mechanisms and the creation of an independent organisation to implement it. The letter does not call for specific red lines, but suggests the possibility of banning lethal autonomous weapons, autonomous replication of AI systems and the use of AI in nuclear warfare. Other examples of possible red lines include social scoring, mass surveillance, bioweapon design, AI-generated child sexual abuse material and AI impersonation. A red line could prohibit either AI behaviors (what AI systems should be guaranteed to never do even if asked to) or AI uses. == Signatories == When published, the online declaration was signed by more than 200 prominent politicians and scientists, including 10 Nobel Prize winners. Signers include former president of Colombia Juan Manuel Santos and researchers Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio. It also includes popular authors like Stephen Fry and Yuval Noah Harari. The letter received support from European lawmakers, including former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta, and former president of Ireland Mary Robinson. == Development of red lines == As of 2025, there is no global red line on AI. Some regional red lines exist, such as with the uses deemed "unacceptable" by the AI Act in Europe, and with the US-China agreement not to leave to AI the decision of whether to launch nuclear weapons. At the United Nations Security Council, days after the declaration, Michael Kratsios, Donald Trump's director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said "We totally reject all efforts by international bodies to assert centralized control and global governance of AI." The topic of AI red lines gained prominence in 2026 with the dispute between Anthropic and the Department of Defense (DoD), which resulted from the DoD requesting Anthropic to remove contractual red lines on fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance. The event led employees from Google and OpenAI as well as Senate Democrats to further call for red lines on military use of AI. Senator Adam Schiff proposed a bill to "codify" Anthropic's red lines.
Read more →
Tandem (app)

Tandem is a mobile language exchange and language learning app. == History == Tandem was founded in Hannover, Germany in 2014 by Arnd Aschentrup, Tobias Dickmeis, and Matthias Kleimann. Prior to founding Tandem, the trio had launched Vive, a members-only mobile video chat platform. Tandem has been criticised for not accepting members into the community immediately, as opposed to competitors including HelloTalk, Speaky or Cafehub. In some countries, there is a waiting list and applicants can wait up to seven days for their application to be processed by human moderators. In 2015, Tandem completed its first funding round (seed funding) of €600,000. Participating investors included business angels such as Atlantic Labs (Christophe Maire), Hannover Beteiligungsfonds, Marcus Englert (Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Rocket Internet SE ), Catagonia, Ludwig zu Salm, Florian Langenscheidt, Heiko Hubertz, Martin Sinner, and Zehden Enterprises. In 2016, the company received a further €2 million from new investors Rubylight and Faber Ventures, as well as from existing investors Hannover Beteiligungsfonds, Atlantic Labs, and Zehden Enterprises. Since 2018, the premium membership Tandem Pro has been available, which offers members unlimited access to all language learning features of the app as well as the removal of advertising for a monthly fee.
Read more →
Mira Murati

Ermira "Mira" Murati (born 16 December 1988) is an Albanian-American business executive. She launched an AI startup called Thinking Machines Lab in February 2025. Previously she was the chief technology officer of OpenAI, and a senior product manager at Tesla. == Early life and education == Murati was born on 16 December 1988 in Vlorë, Albania. She is fluent in Italian. At age 16, she won a United World Colleges (UWC) scholarship to study at Pearson College on Vancouver Island in Canada, from which she graduated in 2007 with an International Baccalaureate. After Pearson, she went to the United States to pursue further studies through a dual-degree program, earning a Bachelor of Arts from Colby College in 2011, and a Bachelor of Engineering degree from Dartmouth College's Thayer School of Engineering in 2012. == Career == === Early career === Murati interned in 2011 as a summer analyst at Goldman Sachs in Tokyo, Japan. She then briefly worked for Zodiac Aerospace as an intern before joining the electric car company Tesla in 2013 as a product manager on the Model X. From 2016 to 2018, she worked for the augmented reality start-up Leap Motion (now Ultraleap). === OpenAI === In 2018, she joined OpenAI as the VP of Applied AI and partnerships. She became chief technology officer (CTO) in May 2022. She led OpenAI's work on ChatGPT, Dall-E, Codex and Sora, while overseeing its research, product and safety teams. She oversaw technical advancements and direction of OpenAI's various projects, including the development of advanced AI models and tools. Murati worked on several of OpenAI's notable products, such as the Generative Pretrained Transformer (GPT) series of language models. Commenting about the potential loss of creative jobs to AI, Murati said that "maybe [the jobs] shouldn’t have been there in the first place". In October 2023, Murati was ranked 57th on Fortune's list of "The 100 Most Powerful Women in Business of 2023". In November 2023, Murati became interim chief executive officer of OpenAI following the removal of Sam Altman from the job. She had collaborated with Ilya Sutskever, whose 52-page memo outlining concerns about Altman relied heavily on screenshots and information she provided, which contributed to the board's decision to oust him. Murati was replaced by Emmett Shear three days later, who left when Altman was reinstated five days later. Following these events, Murati returned to her role as CTO. In June 2024, Dartmouth College awarded Murati an honorary Doctor of Science for having "democratized technology and advanced a better, safer world for us all". In September 2024, Murati announced that she was stepping down as CTO to allow her the opportunity to "do my own exploration". This move came amid a wider executive exodus as OpenAI chief research officer Bob McGrew and a vice president of research, Barret Zoph, also announced their departures soon after. === Thinking Machines Lab === In February 2025, Murati launched Thinking Machines Lab, a new public benefit corporation aiming "to make AI systems more widely understood, customizable, and generally capable". She was reported to have hired "a team of about 30 leading researchers and engineers from competitors including Meta, Mistral, and OpenAI." People involved with the startup include OpenAI cofounder John Schulman, and advisors Alec Radford and Bob McGrew. The following month, Bloomberg reported that the company had reached an estimated valuation of $9 billion, with an "average founder stake value" of $1.4 billion. In April 2025, Thinking Machines Lab reportedly aimed for a $2 billion seed round (requiring a minimum investment of $50 million). The round was led by Andreessen Horowitz and included participation from the government of Albania, valuing the company at $12 billion. Thinking Machines Lab follows a governance structure wherein Mira Murati holds a deciding vote on board matters, weighted to provide her with a majority decision-making capability. In October 2025, Thinking Machines Lab announced its first product, Tinker, a tool used to create custom frontier AI models. == Publications == Murati, Ermira (Spring 2022). "Language & Coding Creativity". Daedalus. 151 (2). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS): 156–167. doi:10.1162/daed_a_01907. Retrieved 25 September 2024.
Read more →
Learning rule

An artificial neural network's learning rule or learning process is a method, mathematical logic or algorithm which improves the network's performance and/or training time. Usually, this rule is applied repeatedly over the network. It is done by updating the weight and bias levels of a network when it is simulated in a specific data environment. A learning rule may accept existing conditions (weights and biases) of the network, and will compare the expected result and actual result of the network to give new and improved values for the weights and biases. Depending on the complexity of the model being simulated, the learning rule of the network can be as simple as an XOR gate or mean squared error, or as complex as the result of a system of differential equations. The learning rule is one of the factors which decides how fast or how accurately the neural network can be developed. Depending on the process to develop the network, there are three main paradigms of machine learning: supervised learning, unsupervised learning, and reinforcement learning. == Background == A lot of the learning methods in machine learning work similar to each other, and are based on each other, which makes it difficult to classify them in clear categories. But they can be broadly understood in 4 categories of learning methods, though these categories don't have clear boundaries and they tend to belong to multiple categories of learning methods - Hebbian - Neocognitron, Brain-state-in-a-box Gradient Descent - ADALINE, Hopfield Network, Recurrent Neural Network Competitive - Learning Vector Quantisation, Self-Organising Feature Map, Adaptive Resonance Theory Stochastic - Boltzmann Machine, Cauchy Machine Though these learning rules might appear to be based on similar ideas, they do have subtle differences, as they are a generalisation or application over the previous rule, and hence it makes sense to study them separately based on their origins and intents. === Hebbian Learning === Developed by Donald Hebb in 1949 to describe biological neuron firing. In the mid-1950s it was also applied to computer simulations of neural networks. Δ w i = η x i y {\displaystyle \Delta w_{i}=\eta x_{i}y} Where η {\displaystyle \eta } represents the learning rate, x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} represents the input of neuron i, and y is the output of the neuron. It has been shown that Hebb's rule in its basic form is unstable. Oja's Rule, BCM Theory are other learning rules built on top of or alongside Hebb's Rule in the study of biological neurons. ==== Perceptron Learning Rule (PLR) ==== The perceptron learning rule originates from the Hebbian assumption, and was used by Frank Rosenblatt in his perceptron in 1958. The net is passed to the activation (transfer) function and the function's output is used for adjusting the weights. The learning signal is the difference between the desired response and the actual response of a neuron. The step function is often used as an activation function, and the outputs are generally restricted to -1, 0, or 1. The weights are updated with w new = w old + η ( t − o ) x i {\displaystyle w_{\text{new}}=w_{\text{old}}+\eta (t-o)x_{i}} where "t" is the target value and "o" is the output of the perceptron, and η {\displaystyle \eta } is called the learning rate. The algorithm converges to the correct classification if: the training data is linearly separable η {\displaystyle \eta } is sufficiently small (though smaller η {\displaystyle \eta } generally means a longer learning time and more epochs) It should also be noted that a single layer perceptron with this learning rule is incapable of working on linearly non-separable inputs, and hence the XOR problem cannot be solved using this rule alone === Backpropagation === Seppo Linnainmaa in 1970 is said to have developed the Backpropagation Algorithm but the origins of the algorithm go back to the 1960s with many contributors. It is a generalisation of the least mean squares algorithm in the linear perceptron and the Delta Learning Rule. It implements gradient descent search through the space possible network weights, iteratively reducing the error, between the target values and the network outputs. ==== Widrow-Hoff Learning (Delta Learning Rule) ==== Similar to the perceptron learning rule but with different origin. It was developed for use in the ADALINE network, which differs from the Perceptron mainly in terms of the training. The weights are adjusted according to the weighted sum of the inputs (the net), whereas in perceptron the sign of the weighted sum was useful for determining the output as the threshold was set to 0, -1, or +1. This makes ADALINE different from the normal perceptron. Delta rule (DR) is similar to the Perceptron Learning Rule (PLR), with some differences: Error (δ) in DR is not restricted to having values of 0, 1, or -1 (as in PLR), but may have any value DR can be derived for any differentiable output/activation function f, whereas in PLR only works for threshold output function Sometimes only when the Widrow-Hoff is applied to binary targets specifically, it is referred to as Delta Rule, but the terms seem to be used often interchangeably. The delta rule is considered to a special case of the back-propagation algorithm. Delta rule also closely resembles the Rescorla-Wagner model under which Pavlovian conditioning occurs. === Competitive Learning === Competitive learning is considered a variant of Hebbian learning, but it is special enough to be discussed separately. Competitive learning works by increasing the specialization of each node in the network. It is well suited to finding clusters within data. Models and algorithms based on the principle of competitive learning include vector quantization and self-organizing maps (Kohonen maps).
Read more →
Yale shooting problem

The Yale shooting problem is a conundrum or scenario in formal situational logic on which early logical solutions to the frame problem fail. The name of this problem comes from a scenario proposed by its inventors, Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott, working at Yale University when they proposed it. In this scenario, Fred (later identified as a turkey) is initially alive and a gun is initially unloaded. Loading the gun, waiting for a moment, and then shooting the gun at Fred is expected to kill Fred. However, if inertia is formalized in logic by minimizing the changes in this situation, then it cannot be uniquely proved that Fred is dead after loading, waiting, and shooting. In one solution, Fred indeed dies; in another (also logically correct) solution, the gun becomes mysteriously unloaded and Fred survives. Technically, this scenario is described by two fluents (a fluent is a condition that can change truth value over time): a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} and l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} . Initially, the first condition is true and the second is false. Then, the gun is loaded, some time passes, and the gun is fired. Such problems can be formalized in logic by considering four time points 0 {\displaystyle 0} , 1 {\displaystyle 1} , 2 {\displaystyle 2} , and 3 {\displaystyle 3} , and turning every fluent such as a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} into a predicate a l i v e ( t ) {\displaystyle alive(t)} depending on time. A direct formalization of the statement of the Yale shooting problem in logic is the following one: a l i v e ( 0 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)} ¬ l o a d e d ( 0 ) {\displaystyle \neg loaded(0)} t r u e → l o a d e d ( 1 ) {\displaystyle true\rightarrow loaded(1)} l o a d e d ( 2 ) → ¬ a l i v e ( 3 ) {\displaystyle loaded(2)\rightarrow \neg alive(3)} The first two formulae represent the initial state. The third formula formalizes the effect of loading the gun at time 1 {\displaystyle 1} . The fourth formula formalizes the effect of shooting at Fred at time 2 {\displaystyle 2} . This is a simplified formalization in which action names are neglected and the effects of actions are directly specified for the time points in which the actions are executed. See situation calculus for details. The formulae above, while being direct formalizations of the known facts, do not suffice to correctly characterize the domain. Indeed, ¬ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \neg alive(1)} is consistent with all these formulae, although there is no reason to believe that Fred dies before the gun has been shot. The problem is that the formulae above only include the effects of actions, but do not specify that all fluents not changed by the actions remain the same. In other words, a formula a l i v e ( 0 ) ≡ a l i v e ( 1 ) {\displaystyle alive(0)\equiv alive(1)} must be added to formalize the implicit assumption that loading the gun only changes the value of l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} and not the value of a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} . The necessity of a large number of formulae stating the obvious fact that conditions do not change unless an action changes them is known as the frame problem. An early solution to the frame problem was based on minimizing the changes. In other words, the scenario is formalized by the formulae above (that specify only the effects of actions) and by the assumption that the changes in the fluents over time are as minimal as possible. The rationale is that the formulae above enforce all effect of actions to take place, while minimization should restrict the changes to exactly those due to the actions. In the Yale shooting scenario, one possible evaluation of the fluents in which the changes are minimized is the following one. This is the expected solution. It contains two fluent changes: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and a l i v e {\displaystyle alive} becomes false at time 3. The following evaluation also satisfies all formulae above. In this evaluation, there are still two changes only: l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} becomes true at time 1 and false at time 2. As a result, this evaluation is considered a valid description of the evolution of the state, although there is no valid reason to explain l o a d e d {\displaystyle loaded} being false at time 2. The fact that minimization of changes leads to wrong solution is the motivation for the introduction of the Yale shooting problem. While the Yale shooting problem has been considered a severe obstacle to the use of logic for formalizing dynamical scenarios, solutions to it have been known since the late 1980s. One solution involves the use of predicate completion in the specification of actions: in this solution, the fact that shooting causes Fred to die is formalized by the preconditions: alive and loaded, and the effect is that alive changes value (since alive was true before, this corresponds to alive becoming false). By turning this implication into an if and only if statement, the effects of shooting are correctly formalized. (Predicate completion is more complicated when there is more than one implication involved.) A solution proposed by Erik Sandewall was to include a new condition of occlusion, which formalizes the “permission to change” for a fluent. The effect of an action that might change a fluent is therefore that the fluent has the new value, and that the occlusion is made (temporarily) true. What is minimized is not the set of changes, but the set of occlusions being true. Another constraint specifying that no fluent changes unless occlusion is true completes this solution. The Yale shooting scenario is also correctly formalized by the Reiter version of the situation calculus, the fluent calculus, and the action description languages. In 2005, the 1985 paper in which the Yale shooting scenario was first described received the AAAI Classic Paper award. In spite of being a solved problem, that example is still sometimes mentioned in recent research papers, where it is used as an illustrative example (e.g., for explaining the syntax of a new logic for reasoning about actions), rather than being presented as a problem.
Read more →
Text Retrieval Conference

The Text REtrieval Conference (TREC) is an ongoing series of workshops focusing on a list of different information retrieval (IR) research areas, or tracks. It is co-sponsored by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (part of the office of the Director of National Intelligence), and began in 1992 as part of the TIPSTER Text program. Its purpose is to support and encourage research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies and to increase the speed of lab-to-product transfer of technology. TREC's evaluation protocols have improved many search technologies. A 2010 study estimated that "without TREC, U.S. Internet users would have spent up to 3.15 billion additional hours using web search engines between 1999 and 2009." Hal Varian the Chief Economist at Google wrote that "The TREC data revitalized research on information retrieval. Having a standard, widely available, and carefully constructed set of data laid the groundwork for further innovation in this field." Each track has a challenge wherein NIST provides participating groups with data sets and test problems. Depending on track, test problems might be questions, topics, or target extractable features. Uniform scoring is performed so the systems can be fairly evaluated. After evaluation of the results, a workshop provides a place for participants to collect together thoughts and ideas and present current and future research work.Text Retrieval Conference started in 1992, funded by DARPA (US Defense Advanced Research Project) and run by NIST. Its purpose was to support research within the information retrieval community by providing the infrastructure necessary for large-scale evaluation of text retrieval methodologies. == Goals == Encourage retrieval search based on large text collections Increase communication among industry, academia, and government by creating an open forum for the exchange of research ideas Speed the transfer of technology from research labs into commercial products by demonstrating substantial improvements retrieval methodologies on real world problems To increase the availability of appropriate evaluation techniques for use by industry and academia including development of new evaluation techniques more applicable to current systems TREC is overseen by a program committee consisting of representatives from government, industry, and academia. For each TREC, NIST provide a set of documents and questions. Participants run their own retrieval system on the data and return to NIST a list of retrieved top-ranked documents. NIST pools the individual result judges the retrieved documents for correctness and evaluates the results. The TREC cycle ends with a workshop that is a forum for participants to share their experiences. == Relevance judgments in TREC == TREC defines relevance as: "If you were writing a report on the subject of the topic and would use the information contained in the document in the report, then the document is relevant." Most TREC retrieval tasks use binary relevance: a document is either relevant or not relevant. Some TREC tasks use graded relevance, capturing multiple degrees of relevance. Most TREC collections are too large to perform complete relevance assessment; for these collections it is impossible to calculate the absolute recall for each query. To decide which documents to assess, TREC usually uses a method call pooling. In this method, the top-ranked n documents from each contributing run are aggregated, and the resulting document set is judged completely. == Various TRECs == In 1992 TREC-1 was held at NIST. The first conference attracted 28 groups of researchers from academia and industry. It demonstrated a wide range of different approaches to the retrieval of text from large document collections .Finally TREC1 revealed the facts that automatic construction of queries from natural language query statements seems to work. Techniques based on natural language processing were no better no worse than those based on vector or probabilistic approach. TREC2 Took place in August 1993. 31 group of researchers participated in this. Two types of retrieval were examined. Retrieval using an ‘ad hoc’ query and retrieval using a ‘routing' query In TREC-3 a small group experiments worked with Spanish language collection and others dealt with interactive query formulation in multiple databases TREC-4 they made even shorter to investigate the problems with very short user statements TREC-5 includes both short and long versions of the topics with the goal of carrying out deeper investigation into which types of techniques work well on various lengths of topics In TREC-6 Three new tracks speech, cross language, high precision information retrieval were introduced. The goal of cross language information retrieval is to facilitate research on system that are able to retrieve relevant document regardless of language of the source document TREC-7 contained seven tracks out of which two were new Query track and very large corpus track. The goal of the query track was to create a large query collection TREC-8 contain seven tracks out of which two –question answering and web tracks were new. The objective of QA query is to explore the possibilities of providing answers to specific natural language queries TREC-9 Includes seven tracks In TREC-10 Video tracks introduced Video tracks design to promote research in content based retrieval from digital video In TREC-11 Novelty tracks introduced. The goal of novelty track is to investigate systems abilities to locate relevant and new information within the ranked set of documents returned by a traditional document retrieval system TREC-12 held in 2003 added three new tracks; Genome track, robust retrieval track, HARD (Highly Accurate Retrieval from Documents) == Tracks == === Current tracks === New tracks are added as new research needs are identified, this list is current for TREC 2018. CENTRE Track – Goal: run in parallel CLEF 2018, NTCIR-14, TREC 2018 to develop and tune an IR reproducibility evaluation protocol (new track for 2018). Common Core Track – Goal: an ad hoc search task over news documents. Complex Answer Retrieval (CAR) – Goal: to develop systems capable of answering complex information needs by collating information from an entire corpus. Incident Streams Track – Goal: to research technologies to automatically process social media streams during emergency situations (new track for TREC 2018). The News Track – Goal: partnership with The Washington Post to develop test collections in news environment (new for 2018). Precision Medicine Track – Goal: a specialization of the Clinical Decision Support track to focus on linking oncology patient data to clinical trials. Real-Time Summarization Track (RTS) – Goal: to explore techniques for real-time update summaries from social media streams. === Past tracks === Chemical Track – Goal: to develop and evaluate technology for large scale search in chemistry-related documents, including academic papers and patents, to better meet the needs of professional searchers, and specifically patent searchers and chemists. Clinical Decision Support Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for linking medical cases to information relevant for patient care Contextual Suggestion Track – Goal: to investigate search techniques for complex information needs that are highly dependent on context and user interests. Crowdsourcing Track – Goal: to provide a collaborative venue for exploring crowdsourcing methods both for evaluating search and for performing search tasks. Genomics Track – Goal: to study the retrieval of genomic data, not just gene sequences but also supporting documentation such as research papers, lab reports, etc. Last ran on TREC 2007. Dynamic Domain Track – Goal: to investigate domain-specific search algorithms that adapt to the dynamic information needs of professional users as they explore in complex domains. Enterprise Track – Goal: to study search over the data of an organization to complete some task. Last ran on TREC 2008. Entity Track – Goal: to perform entity-related search on Web data. These search tasks (such as finding entities and properties of entities) address common information needs that are not that well modeled as ad hoc document search. Cross-Language Track – Goal: to investigate the ability of retrieval systems to find documents topically regardless of source language. After 1999, this track spun off into CLEF. FedWeb Track – Goal: to select best resources to forward a query to, and merge the results so that most relevant are on the top. Federated Web Search Track – Goal: to investigate techniques for the selection and combination of search results from a large number of real on-line web search services. Filtering Track – Goal: to binarily decide retrieval of new
Read more →
Ethics of artificial intelligence

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

A semantic similarity network (SSN) is a special form of semantic network. designed to represent concepts and their semantic similarity. Its main contribution is reducing the complexity of calculating semantic distances. Bendeck (2004, 2008) introduced the concept of semantic similarity networks (SSN) as the specialization of a semantic network to measure semantic similarity from ontological representations. Implementations include genetic information handling. The concept is formally defined (Bendeck 2008) as a directed graph, with concepts represented as nodes and semantic similarity relations as edges. The relationships are grouped into relation types. The concepts and relations contain attribute values to evaluate the semantic similarity between concepts. The semantic similarity relationships of the SSN represent several of the general relationship types of the standard Semantic network, reducing the complexity of the (normally, very large) network for calculations of semantics. SSNs define relation types as templates (and taxonomy of relations) for semantic similarity attributes that are common to relations of the same type. SSN representation allows propagation algorithms to faster calculate semantic similarities, including stop conditions within a specified threshold. This reduces the computation time and power required for calculation. A more recent publications on Semantic Matching and Semantic Similarity Networks could be found in (Bendeck 2019). Specific Semantic Similarity Network application on healthcare was presented at the Healthcare information exchange Format (FHIR European Conference) 2019. The latest evolution in Artificial Intelligence (like ChatGPT, based on Large language model), relay strongly on evolutionary computation, the next level will be to include semantic unification (like in the Semantic Networks and this Semantic similarity network) to extend the current models with more powerful understanding tools.
Read more →