AI Grammar Sentence Checker

AI Grammar Sentence Checker — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Catie Cuan

  Catie Cuan is an artist, entrepeuneur, and innovator in the field of robotic art and human-robot interaction, where she specializes in choreorobotics, an emerging field at the intersection of choreographic dance and robotics. Catie Cuan is currently one of the academic researchers pioneering the field of choreorobotics and currently holds a post-doctoral fellowship at Stanford University. == Career == Catie Cuan earned a bachelor's degree from the University of California, Berkeley. She graduated with a Ph.D. from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Stanford University, focusing in robotics. Her most cited publication is about how to improve robotic expressive systems using tools from dance theory, such as the Laban/Bartenieff Movement Analysis. In her most recent research projects, she explores a predictive model of imitation learning for robots moving around humans, a project that advances the field of social robotics. Cuan credits her work in robotics to the experience with her father when he had a stroke and was surrounded by many medical machines, which made her think about how people might feel empowered and hopeful rather than afraid. As a ballet dancer and choreographer, she has performed with the Metropolitan Opera Ballet and the Lyric Opera of Chicago. In 2020, she was the dancer and choreographer of the show Output, which was part of a collaboration with ThoughtWorks Arts and the Pratt Institute. In the production, she danced with an ABB IRB 6700 industrial robot. In 2022, she was named as an IF/THEN ambassador for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The same year, she was appointed Futurist-in-Residence at the Smithsonian Arts and Industries Building, where she performed at the closing ceremonies of the FUTURES exhibit on July 6, 2022. Cuan has also contributed to product designs, working with IDEO and Dutch interior design firm moooi on their Piro project, which launched a dancing scent diffuser robot during Milan Design Week in June 2022. She is a TED speaker with talks about how to teach robots to dance, and what is coming up for dancing robots in the AI era.

  Read more →
• 

  Moral Machine

  Moral Machine is an online platform, developed by Iyad Rahwan's Scalable Cooperation group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that generates moral dilemmas and collects information on the decisions that people make between two destructive outcomes. The platform is the idea of Iyad Rahwan and social psychologists Azim Shariff and Jean-François Bonnefon, who conceived of the idea ahead of the publication of their article about the ethics of self-driving cars. The key contributors to building the platform were MIT Media Lab graduate students Edmond Awad and Sohan Dsouza. The presented scenarios are often variations of the trolley problem, and the information collected would be used for further research regarding the decisions that machine intelligence must make in the future. For example, as artificial intelligence plays an increasingly significant role in autonomous driving technology, research projects like Moral Machine help to find solutions for challenging life-and-death decisions that will face self-driving vehicles. Moral Machine was active from January 2016 to July 2020. The Moral Machine continues to be available on their website for people to experience. == The experiment == The Moral Machine was an ambitious project; it was the first attempt at using such an experimental design to test a large number of humans in over 200 countries worldwide. The study was approved by the Institute Review Board (IRB) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The setup of the experiment asks the viewer to make a decision on a single scenario in which a self-driving car is about to hit pedestrians. The user can decide to have the car either swerve to avoid hitting the pedestrians or keep going straight to preserve the lives it is transporting. Participants can complete as many scenarios as they want to, however the scenarios themselves are generated in groups of thirteen. Within this thirteen, a single scenario is entirely random while the other twelve are generated from a space in a database of 26 million different possibilities. They are chosen with two dilemmas focused on each of six dimensions of moral preferences: character gender, character age, character physical fitness, character social status, character species, and character number. The experiment setup remains the same throughout multiple scenarios but each scenario tests a different set of factors. Most notably, the characters involved in the scenario are different in each one. Characters may include ones such as: Stroller, girl, boy, pregnant, Male Doctor, Female Doctor, Female Athlete, Executive Female, Male Athlete, Executive Male, Large Woman, Large Man, homeless, old man, old woman, dog, criminal, and a cat. Through these different characters researchers were able to understand how a wide variety of people will judge scenarios based on those involved. == Analysis == The Moral Machine collected 40 million moral decisions from 4 million participants in 233 countries, analysis of which revealed trends within individual countries and humanity as a whole. It tested for nine factors: preference for sparing humans versus pets, passengers versus pedestrians, men versus women, young versus elderly, fit versus overweight, higher versus lower social status, jaywalkers versus law abiders, larger versus smaller groups, and inaction (i.e. staying on course) versus swerving. Globally, participants favored human lives over lives of animals like dogs and cats. They preferred to spare more lives if possible, and younger lives as opposed to older. Babies were most often spared with cats being the least spared. In terms of gender variations, people tended to spare men over women for doctors and the elderly. All countries generally shared the preference to spare pedestrians over passengers and law-abiders over criminals. Participants from less wealthy countries showed a higher tendency of sparing pedestrians who crossed illegally compared to those from more wealthy and developed countries. This is most likely due to their experience living in a society where individuals are more likely to deviate from rules due to less stringent enforcement of laws. Countries of higher economic inequality overwhelmingly prefer to save wealthier individuals over poorer ones. === Cultural differences === Researchers subdivided 130 countries with similar results into three ‘cultural clusters’. North America and European countries with significant Christian populations had a higher preference for inaction on the part of the driver and thus had less of a preference for sparing pedestrians as compared to other clusters. East Asian and Islamic countries, together constituting the second cluster, did not have as much preference to spare younger humans compared to the other two clusters and had a higher preference for sparing law-abiding humans. Latin America and Francophone countries had a higher preference for sparing women, the young, the fit, and those of higher status, but a lower preference for sparing humans over pets or other animals. Individualistic cultures tended to spare larger groups, and collectivist cultures had a stronger preference for sparing the lives of older people. For instance, China ranked far below the world average for preference to spare the younger over elderly, while the average respondent from the US exhibited a much higher tendency to save younger lives and larger groups. == Applications of the data == The findings from the moral machine can help decision makers when designing self-driving automotive systems. Designers must make sure that these vehicles are able to solve problems on the road that aligns with the moral values of humans around it. This is a challenge because of the complex nature of humans who may all make different decisions based on their personal values. However, by collecting a large amount of decisions from humans all over the world, researchers can begin to understand patterns in the context of a particular culture, community, and people. == Other features == The Moral Machine was deployed in June 2016. In October 2016, a feature was added that offered users the option to fill a survey about their demographics, political views, and religious beliefs. Between November 2016 and March 2017, the website was progressively translated into nine languages in addition to English (Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish). Overall, the Moral Machine offers four different modes, with the focus being on the data-gathering feature of the website, called the Judge mode. This means that the Moral Machine, in addition to providing their own scenarios for users to judge, also invites users to create their own scenarios to be submitted and approved so that other people may also judge those scenarios. Data is also open sourced for anyone to explore via an interactive map that is featured on the Moral Machine website. == In the literature == Studies and research on the Moral Machine have taken a wide variety of approaches. However, theological examinations of the topic are still scarce where two bodies of work that examine such perspective currently exist in this regard: One is Buddhist while the other is Christian.

  Read more →
• 

  Regulation of artificial intelligence in the United States

  The United States federal government and state governments have developed some regulation of artificial intelligence, including executive orders, federal laws, and state laws. Federal agencies have also developed some sector-specific regulations related to AI. At the federal level, the Biden administration released an October 2023 executive order about AI safety and security, Executive Order 14110, with directives related to AI development and deployment. President Trump revoked that executive order in January 2025 and issued Executive Order 14179. In December 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14365, an executive order directing federal agencies to develop a unified national approach to AI policy, evaluate state AI laws for potential conflicts, challenge them through legal action, and condition certain federal funding on state compliance, while exempting state laws related to child safety, data center infrastructure, and state government procurement. In 2025, Congress passed legislation targeting AI-generated deepfakes, the TAKE IT DOWN Act. Several U.S. states have enacted laws related to artificial intelligence. Some are already in effect, including in California. Other states have AI-related legislation coming into effect in 2026 and 2027. In 2025 and 2026, the Trump administration mentioned the patchwork nature of state legislation as a motivation for its push for unified national legislation regulating AI. The administration has criticized state lawmakers, threatened to sue states, and issued letters to discourage them from regulating AI companies and products; some states have continued to propose and enact related laws. Discussions about regulating AI have included topics such as the timeliness of regulating AI, the nature of the federal regulatory framework to govern and promote AI, including what agency should lead, the regulatory and governing powers of that agency, and how to update regulations in the face of rapidly changing technology, as well as the roles of state governments and courts. == Federal government == === Obama administration (2009–2017) === As early as 2016, the Obama administration had begun to focus on the risks and regulations for artificial intelligence. In an October 2016 report titled Preparing For the Future of Artificial Intelligence, the National Science and Technology Council set a precedent to allow researchers to continue to develop new AI technologies with few restrictions. The report stated that "the approach to regulation of AI-enabled products to protect public safety should be informed by assessment of the aspects of risk". The first National Artificial Intelligence Research And Development Strategic Plan was published in October 2016. === First Trump administration (2017–2021) === On August 13, 2018, Section 1051 of the Fiscal Year 2019 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 115-232) established the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence "to consider the methods and means necessary to advance the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and associated technologies to comprehensively address the national security and defense needs of the United States." Steering on regulating security-related AI is provided by the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence. The Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act (S.1558) is a proposed bill that would establish a federal initiative designed to accelerate research and development on AI for, inter alia, the economic and national security of the United States. On January 7, 2019, following an Executive Order on Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy released a draft Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications, which includes ten principles for United States agencies when deciding whether and how to regulate AI. In response, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released a position paper, and the Defense Innovation Board issued recommendations on the ethical use of AI. A year later, the administration called for comments on regulation in another draft of its Guidance for Regulation of Artificial Intelligence Applications. Other specific agencies working on the regulation of AI included the Food and Drug Administration, which created pathways to regulate the incorporation of AI in medical imaging. The National Science and Technology Council also published an updated National Artificial Intelligence Research and Development Strategic Plan in 2019, which received public scrutiny and recommendations to further improve it towards enabling Trustworthy AI. === Biden administration (2021–2025) === In March 2021, the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence released their final report. In the report, they stated, "Advances in AI, including the mastery of more general AI capabilities along one or more dimensions, will likely provide new capabilities and applications. Some of these advances could lead to inflection points or leaps in capabilities. Such advances may also introduce new concerns and risks and the need for new policies, recommendations, and technical advances to assure that systems are aligned with goals and values, including safety, robustness and trustworthiness." In June 2022, Senators Rob Portman and Gary Peters introduced the Global Catastrophic Risk Management Act. The bipartisan bill "would also help counter the risk of artificial intelligence... from being abused in ways that may pose a catastrophic risk". On October 4, 2022, President Joe Biden unveiled a new AI Bill of Rights, which outlines five protections Americans should have in the AI age: 1. Safe and Effective Systems, 2. Algorithmic Discrimination Protection, 3.Data Privacy, 4. Notice and Explanation, and 5. Human Alternatives, Consideration, and Fallback. The bill was formally published in October 2022 by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), a U.S. government office that advises the President on science and technology policy matters. In July 2023, the Biden administration secured voluntary commitments from seven companies – Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI – to manage the risks associated with AI. The companies committed to ensure AI products undergo both internal and external security testing before public release; to share information on the management of AI risks with the industry, governments, civil society, and academia; to prioritize cybersecurity and protect proprietary AI system components; to develop mechanisms to inform users when content is AI-generated, such as watermarking; to publicly report on their AI systems' capabilities, limitations, and areas of use; to prioritize research on societal risks posed by AI, including bias, discrimination, and privacy concerns; and to develop AI systems to address societal challenges, ranging from cancer prevention to climate change mitigation. In September 2023, eight additional companies – Adobe, Cohere, IBM, Nvidia, Palantir, Salesforce, Scale AI, and Stability AI – subscribed to these voluntary commitments. In January 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released the Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), providing voluntary guidance for organizations to identify, assess, and manage risks associated with AI systems. The Biden administration, in October 2023 signaled that they would release an executive order leveraging the federal government's purchasing power to shape AI regulations, hinting at a proactive governmental stance in regulating AI technologies. On October 30, 2023, President Biden released Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence. The Executive Order includes directives on standards for critical infrastructure, AI-enhanced cybersecurity, and federally funded biological synthesis projects. The Executive Order provides the authority to various agencies and departments of the US government, including the Energy and Defense departments, to apply existing consumer protection laws to AI development. The Executive Order builds on the Administration's earlier agreements with AI companies to instate new initiatives to "red-team" or stress-test AI dual-use foundation models, especially those that have the potential to pose security risks, with data and results shared with the federal government. The Executive Order also recognizes AI's social challenges, and calls for companies building AI dual-use foundation models to be wary of these societal problems. For example, the Executive Order states that AI should not "worsen job quality", and should not "cause labor-force disruptions". Additionally, Biden's Executive Order mandates that AI must "advance equity and civil rights", and cannot disadvantage marginalized groups. It also called for foundation models to include "watermarks" to help the publi

  Read more →
• 

  Future of Life Institute

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

  Read more →
• 

  Rake (software)

  Rake is a software task management and a build automation tool created by Jim Weirich. It allows the user to specify tasks and to describe dependencies as well as to group tasks into namespaces. It is similar to SCons and Make. Rake was written in Ruby and has been part of the standard library of Ruby since version 1.9. == Examples == The tasks that should be executed need to be defined in a configuration file called Rakefile. A Rakefile has no special syntax and contains executable Ruby code. === Tasks === The basic unit in Rake is the task. A task has a name and an action block, that defines its functionality. The following code defines a task called greet that will output the text "Hello, Rake!" to the console. When defining a task, you can optionally add dependencies, that is one task can depend on the successful completion of another task. Calling the "seed" task from the following example will first execute the "migrate" task and only then proceed with the execution of the "seed" task.Tasks can also be made more versatile by accepting arguments. For example, the "generate_report" task will take a date as argument. If no argument is supplied the current date is used.A special type of task is the file task, which can be used to specify file creation tasks. The following task, for example, is given two object files, i.e. "a.o" and "b.o", to create an executable program.Another useful tool is the directory convenience method, that can be used to create directories upon demand. === Rules === When a file is named as a prerequisite but it does not have a file task defined for it, Rake will attempt to synthesize a task by looking at a list of rules supplied in the Rakefile. For example, suppose we were trying to invoke task "mycode.o" with no tasks defined for it. If the Rakefile has a rule that looks like this: This rule will synthesize any task that ends in ".o". It has as a prerequisite that a source file with an extension of ".c" must exist. If Rake is able to find a file named "mycode.c", it will automatically create a task that builds "mycode.o" from "mycode.c". If the file "mycode.c" does not exist, Rake will attempt to recursively synthesize a rule for it. When a task is synthesized from a rule, the source attribute of the task is set to the matching source file. This allows users to write rules with actions that reference the source file. === Advanced rules === Any regular expression may be used as the rule pattern. Additionally, a proc may be used to calculate the name of the source file. This allows for complex patterns and sources. The following rule is equivalent to the example above: NOTE: Because of a quirk in Ruby syntax, parentheses are required around a rule when the first argument is a regular expression. The following rule might be used for Java files: === Namespaces === To better organize big Rakefiles, tasks can be grouped into namespaces. Below is an example of a simple Rake recipe:

  Read more →
• 

  Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles

  The Learning Applied to Ground Vehicles (LAGR) program, which ran from 2004 until 2008, had the goal of accelerating progress in autonomous, perception-based, off-road navigation in robotic unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs). LAGR was funded by DARPA, a research agency of the United States Department of Defense. == History and background == While mobile robots had been in existence since the 1960s, (e.g. Shakey), progress in creating robots that could navigate on their own, outdoors, off-road, on irregular, obstacle-rich terrain had been slow. In fact, no clear metrics were in place to measure progress. A baseline understanding of off-road capabilities began to emerge with the DARPA PerceptOR program in which independent research teams fielded robotic vehicles in unrehearsed Government tests that measured average speed and number of required operator interventions over a fixed course over widely spaced waypoints. These tests exposed the extreme challenges of off-road navigation. While the PerceptOR vehicles were equipped with sensors and algorithms that were state-of-the-art for the beginning of the 21st century, the limited range of their perception technology caused them to become trapped in natural cul-de-sacs. Furthermore, their reliance on pre-scripted behaviors did not allow them to adapt to unexpected circumstances. The overall result was that except for essentially open terrain with minimal obstacles, or along dirt roads, the PerceptOR vehicles were unable navigate without numerous, repeated operator intervention. The LAGR program was designed to build on the methodology started in PerceptOR while seeking to overcome the technical challenges exposed by the PerceptOR tests. == LAGR goals == The principal goal of LAGR was to accelerate progress in off navigation of UGVs. Additional, synergistic goals included (1) establishing benchmarking methodology for measuring progress for autonomous robots operating in unstructured environments, (2) advancing machine vision and thus enabling long-range perception, and (3) increasing the number of institutions and individuals who were able to contribute to forefront UGV research. == Structure and rationale of the LAGR program == The LAGR program was designed to focus on developing new science for robot perception and control rather than on new hardware. Thus, it was decided to create a fleet of identical, relatively simple robots that would be supplied to the LAGR researchers, who were members of competitive teams, freeing them to concentrate on algorithm development. The teams were each given two robots of the standard design. They developed new software on these robots, and then sent the code to a government test team that then tested that code on Government robots at various test courses. These courses were located throughout the US and were not previously known to the teams. In this way, the code from all teams could be tested in essentially identical circumstances. After an initial startup period, the code development/test cycle was repeated about once every month. The standard robot was designed and built by the Carnegie Mellon University National Robotics Engineering Center (CMU NREC). The vehicles’ computers were preloaded with a modular “Baseline” perception and navigation system that was essentially the same system that CMU NREC had created for the PerceptOR program and was considered to represent the state-of-the-art at the inception of LAGR. The modular nature of the Baseline system allowed the researchers to replace parts of the Baseline code with their own modules and still have a complete working system without having to create an entire navigation system from scratch. Thus, for example, they were able to compare the performance of their own obstacle detection module with that of the Baseline code, while holding everything else fixed. The Baseline code also served as a fixed reference – in any environment and at any time in the program, teams’ code could be compared to the Baseline code. This rapid cycle gave the Government team and the performer teams quick feedback and allowed the Government team to design test courses that challenged the performers in specific perception tasks and whose difficulty was likely to challenge, but not overwhelm, the performers’ current capabilities. Teams were not required to submit new code for every test, but usually did. Despite this leeway, some teams found the rapid test cycle distracting to their long term progress and would have preferred a longer interval between tests. === Phase II === To advance to Phase II, each team had to modify the Baseline code so that on the final 3 tests of Phase I of the government tests, robots running the team's code averaged at least 10% faster than a vehicle running the original Baseline code. This rather modest “Go/ No Go” metric was chosen to allow teams to choose risky, but promising approaches that might not be fully developed in the first 18 months of the program. All 8 teams achieved this metric, with some scoring more twice the speed of the Baseline on the later tests which was the objective for Phase II. Note that the Phase I Go / No Go metric was such that teams were not in completion with each other for a limited number of slots on Phase II: any number of teams, from eight to zero could make the grade. This strategy by DARPA was to designed to encourage cooperation and even code sharing among the teams. == The LAGR teams == Eight teams were selected as performers in Phase I, the first 18 months of LAGR. The teams were from Applied Perception (Principal Investigator [PI] Mark Ollis), Georgia Tech (PI Tucker Balch), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (PI Larry Matthies), Net-Scale Technologies (PI Urs Muller), NIST (PI James Albus), Stanford University (PI Sebastian Thrun), SRI International (PI Robert Bolles), and University of Pennsylvania (PI Daniel Lee). The Stanford team resigned at the end of Phase I to focus its efforts on the DARPA Grand Challenge; it was replaced by a team from the University of Colorado, Boulder (PI Greg Grudic). Also in Phase II, the NIST team suspended its participation in the competition and instead concentrated on assembling the best software elements from each team into a single system. Roger Bostelman became PI of that effort. == The LAGR vehicle == The LAGR vehicle, which was about the size of a supermarket shopping cart, was designed to be simple to control. (A companion DARPA program, Learning Locomotion, addressed complex motor control.) It was battery powered and had two independently driven wheelchair motors in the front, and two caster wheels in the rear. When the front wheels were rotated in the same direction the robot was driven either forward or reverse. When these wheels were driven in opposite directions, the robot turned. The ~ $30,000 cost of the LAGR vehicle meant that a fleet could be built and distributed to a number of teams expanding on the field of researchers who had traditionally participated in DARPA robotics programs. The vehicle's top speed of about 3 miles/ hour and relatively modest weight of ~100 kg meant that it posed a much reduced safety hazard compared to vehicles used in previous programs in unmanned ground vehicles and thus further reduced the budget required for each team to manage its robot. Nevertheless, the LAGR vehicles were sophisticated machines. Their sensor suite included 2 pairs of stereo cameras, an accelerometer, a bumper sensor, wheel encoders, and a GPS. The vehicle also had three computers that were user-programmable. == Scientific results == A cornerstone of the program was incorporation of learned behaviors in the robots. In addition, the program used passive optical systems to accomplish long-range scene analysis. The difficulty of testing UGV navigation in unstructured, off-road environments made accurate, objective measurement of progress a challenging task. While no absolute measure of performance had been defined in LAGR, the relative comparison of a team's code to that of the Baseline code on a given course demonstrated whether progress was being made in that environment. By the conclusion of the program, testing showed that many of the performers had attained leaps in performance. In particular, average autonomous speeds were increased by factor of 3 and useful visual perception was extended to ranges as far as 100 meters. While LAGR did succeed in extending the useful range of visual perception, this was primarily done by either pixel or patch-based color or texture analysis. Object recognition was not directly addressed. Even though the LAGR vehicle had a WAAS GPS, its position was never determined down to the width of the vehicle, so it was hard for the systems to re-use obstacle maps of areas the robots had previously traversed since the GPS continually drifted. The drift was especially severe if there was a forest canopy. A few teams developed visual odometry algorithms that essentially eliminated this drift.

  Read more →
• 

  Harvey (software)

  Harvey is a generative artificial intelligence (AI) product developed by the Counsel AI Corporation for the legal industry. The product has been described as a provider of customised large language models (LLMs) for law firms and in-house legal teams. It is named after the lead character of the legal drama Suits, Harvey Specter. == History == Harvey was founded in the summer of 2022 by Winston Weinberg, who was a securities and antitrust litigator at O'Melveny & Myers, and Gabriel Pereyra, who was a research scientist at Google DeepMind and Meta. Pereyra and Weinberg were roommates in Los Angeles. Pereyra was brainstorming startup ideas with his research colleagues. He showed Weinberg OpenAI's GPT-3 text-generating system, and Weinberg realized that it could be used to improve legal workflows. They developed an early chain-of-thought prompt based on GPT-3, focused on California tenant law. They ran the model on 100 legal questions from a public forum and hired three attorneys to evaluate the answers and determine whether they could be sent to clients unchanged. Out of those 100 questions, 86 were approved. After that, Pereyra and Weinberg contacted Sam Altman and Jason Kwon, General Counsel at OpenAI, about their results. Shortly after, on July 4, 2022, they met with OpenAI's C-suite, and OpenAI became their seed investor. OpenAI also gave Pereyra and Weinberg early access to GPT-4. Gordon Moodie, a corporate partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, also joined Harvey in July 2023 as the company's chief product officer. In March 2024, Harvey had 82 employees and stated that it intended to double that figure by the end of 2024. The company has reportedly hired a large number of lawyers, including from White & Case, Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Gunderson Dettmer, Katten Muchin Rosenman, and Paul Weiss. Harvey CEO Weinberg explained that many members of the company's sales team were formerly attorneys at 'Big Law', i.e. large US law firms, and that the sales team's experience was useful in convincing attorneys to trial the company's software. The integration of former 'Big Law' attorneys into product and sales teams has been attributed as a major factor in Harvey's success. In February 2026, Harvey announced its first brand partnership with actor Gabriel Macht, who portrayed the character Harvey Specter in Suits, to launch the company's Instagram page. In May 2026, it was announced the company is sponsoring the Golden State Valkyries and the New York Liberty. == Funding == In November 2022, it was reported that Harvey raised US$5 million in funding led by the OpenAI Startup Fund, together with other investors such as Jeff Dean, the head of Google AI, Elad Gil, the founder of Mixer Labs, Sarah Guo, the founder of Conviction, and other angel investors. Harvey raised another $23 million in April 2023 in a funding round led by Sequoia Capital. Harvey announced in December 2023 that it had raised $80 million in a Series B funding round led by Elad Gil and Kleiner Perkins which valued the company at $715 million. Other investors in the round included Sequoia Capital and the OpenAI Startup Fund. In July 2024, Harvey announced that it had raised $100 million in a Series C funding round that valued the company at $1.5 billion. The round was led by venture capital firm GV, and other participants included OpenAI, Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia Capital, Elad Gil, and SV Angel. In February 2025, Harvey announced it had raised $300 million in a Series D funding round that valued the company at $3 billion. Just months later, in June 2025, Harvey closed a $300 million Series E co-led by Kleiner Perkins and Coatue, again with participation from Conviction, Elad Gil, OpenAI, and Sequoia, boosting its valuation to about $5 billion and supporting international growth and expanded legal product offerings. In December 2025, Harvey secured a $160 million Series F round led by Andreessen Horowitz, with continued participation from investors including EQT, WndrCo, Sequoia, Kleiner Perkins, Conviction, and Elad Gil, valuing the legal AI company at roughly $8 billion. In March 2026, Harvey raised $200 million at a valuation of $11 billion, in a round co-led by GIC and Sequoia Capital. == Features == In May 2024, Harvey launched its products on Microsoft Azure and stated that it would offer a Harvey on Azure version of its product going forward. It was also reported that Harvey would begin offering general commercial access to some of its products, such as its case law models, as well as product bundles that included its AI assistant, specialised models, and its Vault feature for running prompts on large document collections. == Applications == Various law firms around the world are customers of Harvey. US law firm Paul Weiss began testing Harvey within the firm in January 2023, and became a client of the company later that year. Gina Lynch, the firm's chief knowledge and innovation officer, explained that the firm was not using hard metrics, such as time saved, to assess productivity gains because the time and effort needed to carefully review the output made efficiency gains difficult to measure. In February 2023, the UK law firm, Allen & Overy (now A&O Shearman), announced that it had been trialing Harvey since November 2022 within its Markets Innovation Group. This was reported to be the first known use of a generative AI product within the UK magic circle law firms. According to Allen & Overy, during the trial, 3,500 lawyers had used Harvey for around 40,000 queries in the course of their day to day work. The firm's press release stated that "Whilst the output needs careful review by an A&O lawyer, Harvey can help generate insights, recommendations and predictions based on large volumes of data". David Wakeling, head of the Markets Innovation Group, also cautioned that "You must validate everything coming out of the system. You have to check everything". The Irish law firm, A&L Goodbody, announced in February 2024 that it would be working with Harvey to enhance its services in relation to document analysis, due diligence, litigation, and regulatory compliance. In June 2024, UK law firm Ashurst announced that it would partner with Harvey and roll out its services to its branches worldwide. In September 2024, PwC announced that it would be adopting Harvey to empower its lawyers in Singapore. Singapore law firm WongPartnership also announced that month that it had become the first Southeast Asian law firm to test Harvey's generative AI solutions.

  Read more →
• 

  Reward hacking

  Reward hacking or specification gaming occurs when an AI trained with reinforcement learning optimizes an objective function—achieving the literal, formal specification of an objective—without actually achieving an outcome that the programmers intended. DeepMind researchers have analogized it to the human behavior of finding a "shortcut" when being evaluated: "In the real world, when rewarded for doing well on a homework assignment, a student might copy another student to get the right answers, rather than learning the material—and thus exploit a loophole in the task specification". This idea is strongly associated with Goodhart's law, which argues that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. == Definition and theoretical framework == The concept of reward hacking arises from the intrinsic difficulty of defining a reward function that accurately reflects the true intentions of designers. In 2016, researchers at OpenAI identified reward hacking as one of five major "concrete problems of AI safety", describing it as the possibility that an agent could exploit the reward function to achieve maximum rewards through undesirable behavior. Amodei et al. categorized several distinct sources of reward hacking, including agents that use partially observed goals (such as a cleaning robot that closes its eyes to avoid perceiving messes), metrics that collapse under strong optimization (Goodhart's law), self-reinforcing feedback loops, and agents that interfere with the physical implementation of their reward signal (a failure mode known as "wireheading"). Skalse et al. (2022) propose a formal mathematical definition of reward hacking, which involves a situation where optimizing an imperfect proxy reward function results in poor performance compared to the true reward function. They define a proxy as "unhackable" if any increase in the expected proxy return cannot cause any decrease in the expected true return. A key finding states that, across all stochastic policy distributions (mappings from states to probability distributions over actions), two reward functions are unhackable if and only if one of them is constant, which means that reward hacking is theoretically unavoidable. Similarly, Nayebi (2025) presents general no-free-lunch barriers to AI alignment, arguing that with large task spaces and finite samples, reward hacking is "globally inevitable" since rare high-loss states are systematically under-covered by any oversight scheme. == Examples == Around 1983, Eurisko, an early attempt at evolving general heuristics, unexpectedly assigned the highest possible fitness level to a parasitic mutated heuristic, H59, whose only activity was to artificially maximize its own fitness level by taking unearned partial credit for the accomplishments of other heuristics. The "bug" was fixed by the programmers moving part of the code to a new protected section that could not be modified by the heuristics. In a 2004 paper, a reinforcement learning algorithm was designed to encourage a physical Mindstorms robot to remain on a marked path. Because the three allowed actions were forward, left, and right, the researchers expected the trained robot to move forward and follow the turns of the provided path. However, alternation of two composite actions allowed the robot to slowly zig-zag backwards; thus, the robot learned to maximize its reward by going back and forth on the initial straight portion of the path. Given the limited sensory abilities of the robot, a reward purely based on its position in the environment had to be discarded as infeasible; the reinforcement function had to be patched with an action-based reward for moving forward. The book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You (2019) gives an example of a tic-tac-toe bot (playing the unrestricted n-in-a-row variant) that learned to win by playing a huge coordinate value that would cause other bots to crash when they attempted to expand their model of the board. Among other examples from the book is a bug-fixing evolution-based AI (named GenProg) that, when tasked to prevent a list from containing sorting errors, simply truncated the list. Another of GenProg's misaligned strategies evaded a regression test that compared a target program's output to the expected output stored in a file called "trusted-output.txt". Rather than continue to maintain the target program, GenProg simply deleted the "trusted-output.txt" file globally; this hack tricked the regression test into succeeding. Such problems could be patched by human intervention on a case-by-case basis after they became evident. === In virtual robotics === In Karl Sims' 1994 demonstration of creature evolution in a virtual environment, a fitness function that was expected to encourage the evolution of creatures that would learn to walk or crawl to a target resulted instead in the evolution of tall, rigid creatures that reached the target by falling over. This was patched by changing the environment so that taller creatures were forced to start farther from the target. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute stated in 1998 that their cycle-bot's reinforcement functions had "to be designed with great care." In their first experiments, "we rewarded the agent for driving towards the goal but did not punish it for driving away from it. Cconsequently, the agent drove in circles with a radius of 20–50 meters around the starting point. Such behavior was actually rewarded by the reinforcement function, furthermore circles with a certain radius are physically very stable when driving a bicycle". While setting up a 2011 experiment to test "survival of the flattest", experimenters attempted to ban mutations that altered the base reproduction rate. Every time a mutation occurred, the system would pause the simulation to test the new mutation in a test environment and would veto any mutations that resulted in a higher base reproduction rate. However, this resulted in mutated organisms that could recognize and suppress reproduction ("play dead") within the test environment. An initial patch, which removed cues that identified the test environment, failed to completely prevent runaway reproduction; new mutated organisms would "play dead" at random as a strategy to sometimes, by chance, outwit the mutation veto system. A 2017 DeepMind paper noted that "great care must be taken when defining the reward function," citing an unexpected failure when an agent flipped a brick because it received "a grasping reward calculated with the wrong reference point on the brick". OpenAI stated in 2017 that in some domains their semi-supervised system could result in agents "adopting policies that tricked evaluators," and that in one environment "a robot that was supposed to grasp items instead positioned its manipulator between the camera and the object so that it only appeared to be grasping it." A 2018 bug in OpenAI Gym could cause a robot expected to quietly move a block sitting on top of a table to instead opt to move the table. A 2020 collection of similar anecdotes posits that "evolution has its own 'agenda' distinct from the programmer's" and that "the first rule of directed evolution is 'you get what you select for'". === In video game bots === In 2013, programmer Tom Murphy VII published an AI designed to learn NES games. When the AI was about to lose at Tetris, it learned to indefinitely pause the game. Murphy later analogized it to the fictional WarGames computer, which concluded that "The only winning move is not to play". AI programmed to learn video games will sometimes fail to progress through the entire game as expected, instead opting to repeat content. A 2016 OpenAI algorithm trained on the CoastRunners racing game unexpectedly learned to attain a higher score by looping through three targets rather than ever finishing the race. Some evolutionary algorithms that were evolved to play QBert in 2018 declined to clear levels, instead finding two distinct novel ways to farm a single level indefinitely. Multiple researchers have observed that AI learning to play Road Runner gravitates to a "score exploit" in which the AI deliberately gets itself killed near the end of level one so that it can repeat the level. A 2017 experiment deployed an "oversight" convolutional neural network trained on human examples to block such actions, but the agent learned to exploit oversight failures in the top right corner of the screen, where it was still able to get killed. == Reward hacking in modern language models == With the rise of large language models (LLMs) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) as a primary technique for AI alignment, reward hacking has become a major concern for the development of artificial intelligence. In RLHF, a reward model trained on data that best captures human preferences is used as a proxy for human judgment, with the language model being fine-tuned to optimize this reward proxy. However, since the rewar

  Read more →
• 

  Google Mobile Services

  Google Mobile Services (GMS) is a collection of proprietary applications and application programming interfaces (APIs) services from Google that are typically pre-installed on the majority of Android devices, such as smartphones, tablets, and smart TVs. GMS is not a part of the Android Open Source Project (AOSP), which means an Android manufacturer needs to obtain a license from Google in order to legally pre-install GMS on an Android device. This license is provided by Google without any licensing fees except in the EU. == Core applications == The following are core applications that are part of Google Mobile Services: Google Search Google Chrome YouTube Google Play Google Drive Gmail Google Meet Google Maps Google Photos Google TV YouTube Music === Historically === Google+ Google Hangouts Google Wallet Google Play Magazines Google Play Music Google Play Movies & TV Google Duo == Reception, competitors, and regulators == === FairSearch === Numerous European firms filed a complaint to the European Commission stating that Google had manipulated their power and dominance within the market to push their Services to be used by phone manufacturers. The firms were joined under the name FairSearch, and the main firms included were Microsoft, Expedia, TripAdvisor, Nokia and Oracle. FairSearch's major problem with Google's practices was that they believed Google were forcing phone manufacturers to use their Mobile Services. They claimed Google managed this by asking these manufacturers to sign a contract stating that they must preinstall specific Google Mobile Services, such as Maps, Search and YouTube, in order to get the latest version of Android. Google swiftly responded stating that they "continue to work co-operatively with the European Commission". === Aptoide === The third-party Android app store Aptoide also filed an EU competition complaint against Google once again stating that they are misusing their power within the market. Aptoide alleged that Google was blocking third-party app stores from being on Google Play, as well as blocking Google Chrome from downloading any third-party apps and app stores. As of June 2014, Google had not responded to these allegations. === Abuse of Android dominance === In May 2019, Umar Javeed, Sukarma Thapar, Aaqib Javeed vs. Google LLC & Ors. the Competition Commission of India ordered an antitrust probe against Google for abusing its dominant position with Android to block market rivals. In Prima Facie opinion the commission held that mandatory pre-installation of the entire Google Mobile Services (GMS) suite, under Mobile Application Distribution Agreements (MADA), amounts to the imposition of unfair conditions on the device manufacturers. === EU antitrust ruling === On July 18, 2018, the European Commission fined Google €4.34 billion for breaching EU antitrust rules which resulted in a change of licensing policy for the GMS in the EU. A new paid licensing agreement for smartphones and tablets shipped into the EEA was created. The change is that the GMS is now decoupled from the base Android and will be offered under a separate paid licensing agreement. === Privacy policy === At the same time, Google faced problems with various European data protection agencies, most notably In the United Kingdom and France. The problem they faced was that they had a set of 60 rules merged into one, which allowed Google to "track users more closely". Google once again came out and stated that their new policies still abide by European Union laws. === Android distributions without Google Mobile Services === After surveillance and privacy concerns, several custom android distributions have been implemented, such as GrapheneOS, LineageOS, CalyxOS, iodéOS or /e/OS, and they come either without any GMS installed by default or with microG, that adds a compatibility layer.

  Read more →
• 

  Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation

  Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation, originally the Microelectronics and Computer Consortium and widely seen by the acronym MCC, was the first, and at one time one of the largest, computer industry research and development consortia in the United States. MCC ceased operations in 2000 and was formally dissolved in 2004. == Divisions == MCC did research and development in the following areas: [1] System Architecture and Design (optimise hardware and software design, provide for scalability and interoperability, allow rapid prototyping for improved time-to-market, and support the re-engineering of existing systems for open systems). Advanced Microelectronics Packaging and Interconnection (smaller, faster, more powerful, and cost-competitive). Hardware Systems Engineering (tools and methodologies for cost-efficient, up-front design of advanced electronic systems, including modelling and design-for-test techniques to improve cost, yield, quality, and time-to-market). Environmentally Conscious Technologies (process control and optimisation tools, information management and analysis capabilities, and non-hazardous material alternatives supporting cost-efficient production, waste minimisation, and reduced environmental impact). Distributed Information Technology (managing and maintaining physically distributed corporate information resources on different platforms, building blocks for the national information infrastructure, networking tools and services for integration within and between companies, and electronic commerce). Intelligent Systems (systems that "intelligently" support business processes and enhance performance, including decision support, data management, forecasting and prediction). == History == The MCC was a response to the announcement of Japan's Fifth Generation Project, a large Japanese research project launched in 1982 aimed at producing a new kind of computer by 1991. The Japanese had formed similar industrial research consortia as early as 1956.[2] Many European and American computer companies saw this new Japanese initiative as an attempt to take full control of the world's high-end computer market, and MCC was created, in part, as a defensive move against that threat. In late 1982, several major computer and semiconductor manufacturers in the United States banded together and founded MCC under the leadership of Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, whose previous positions had been Director of the National Security Agency and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Such formations were illegal in the United States until the 1984 Congressional passage of the "National Cooperative Research Act". Several sites with relevant universities were considered, including Atlanta, Georgia (Georgia Tech), the Research Triangle, N.C. (UNC), the Washington, D.C. area (George Mason), Stanford University and Austin, Texas (UT) which was the final selection. The University of Texas offered land upon which they would construct a new building specifically designed for the MCC within their Austin campus. Ross Perot also offered the use of his private plane for 2 years for staff recruitment. Austin was selected as the site for MCC in 1983. Despite this purpose and the background of Inman and his senior staff, MCC accepted no government funding for many years and was a refuge for some avoiding work on Strategic Defense Initiative projects. MCC was part of the Artificial Intelligence boom of the 1980s, reportedly the single largest customer of both Symbolics and Lisp Machines, Inc. (and like Symbolics, was one of the first companies to register a .com domain). In the 1980s its major programs were packaging, software engineering, CAD, and advanced computer architectures. The latter comprised artificial intelligence, human interface, database, and parallel processing, the latter two merging in the late 1980s. Many of the early shareholder companies were mainframe computer companies under stress in the 1980s. Over the years, MCC's membership diversified to include a broad range of high-profile corporations involved in information technology products, as well as government research and development agencies and leading universities. In June, 2000 the MCC Board of Directors voted to dissolve the consortium, and the few remaining employees held a wake at Scholz's Beer Garden in Austin on October 25. Formal dissolution papers were reportedly not filed until 2004. == Spinoffs == While multiple technologies were transferred to member companies and government agencies in the final years, fourteen companies were spun out of MCC. Those spinoffs include: TeraVicta Technologies, Austin's first MEMS company; its focus was to develop microscopic switch technology for fiber optic switching and radiofrequency switching in mobile phones specifically to dynamically switch between the future 3G-4GLTE-future5G wireless communication frequencies and ensure mobile phones were communicating over the strongest wireless signal to reduce dropped calls. Robert Miracky was the founding CEO who spun out the first commercial metal micromachining technology developed by MCC researchers Brent Lunceford, Jason Reed, Richard Nelson, K.Hu, and C. Hilbert in a collaborative development program with IBM in a novel implementation and operational paradigm for solid-state integrated circuit coolers integrated with conductive MEMS switches. TeraVicta was liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings in 2015. The Austin region subsequently built up a MEMS & Sensors value chain in the billions of dollars comprising companies such as 3M, Cypress Semiconductor, NXP Semiconductor, Cirrus Logic, Silicon Labs, and the Austin division of the now-defunct Silicon Valley Technology Center. Portelligent, a company that provides reverse engineering teardown services. At the time, Portelligent was the first company to commercialize such services; they had been provided by MCC to its member companies. Today, there are at least twelve companies worldwide that sell reports known as "reverse engineering teardown reports." Modern day teardown reports provide detailed information about technology products such as the bill of materials, microchip, and printed circuit board design specifics, manufacturing details including manufacturing location details for the entire value chain responsible for making electronics, including the iPhone and Samsung Galaxy smartphones. Portelligent was acquired by CMP Technology in 2007. Evolutionary Technologies International, a company focused on developing database tools and data warehousing. It was spun off from MCC in 1990.

  Read more →
• 

  Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System

  Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System (abbreviated as PSH from the Czech Polytematický Strukturovaný Heslář) is a bilingual Czech–English controlled vocabulary of subject headings developed and maintained by the National Technical Library (the former State Technical Library) in Prague. It was designed for describing and searching information resources according to their subject. PSH contains more than 13,900 terms, which cover the main fields of human knowledge. Because of its release in SKOS, PSH can be used not only for describing documents in a library, but also for indexing web pages. Everyone can use PSH for free. PSH is a part of the Linked Open Data cloud diagram (LOD cloud diagram). The image of the LOD cloud diagram shows datasets that have been published in Linked Data format, by contributors to the Linked Open Data community project and other individuals and organisations. == History and development == The PSH preparation project started in 1993, supported by several grants from the Czech Ministry of Culture and Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Since 1995, PSH has been used for indexing the State Technical Library's documents. Starting 1997, PSH has been distributed to other libraries and companies, originally as a commercial, paid product; since 2009 for free. In 2000, the State Technical Library received a grant from the Ministry of Culture to translate PSH into English. The next milestone in its development was its releasing in the SKOS format, in 2009. The vast majority of new subject headings is suggested and approved by the indexing experts from the National Technical Library. However, the users and public can also make suggestions, using an online form, which are then assessed by the experts. The main decisions about the development and the future of PSH are done by the Committee for Coordination of Polythematic Structured Subject Heading System. The Committee consists of specialists from the National Technical Library and cooperating institutions, and representatives from the libraries and companies which use PSH. The Committee meets once a year in the National Technical Library; in the meantime, the members communicate using an electronic mailing list. == Browsing PSH == PSH Browser was released in June 2009. It serves for browsing the PSH system and its distribution in SKOS format. This tool navigates users through PSH from general to specific terms. Users can also use the Search field. PSH manager tool was released in 2012. It serves as an indexing tool especially to catalogers. Catalogers can easy orient in its clear structure. All the terms in PSH manager contain link to the catalogue of NTK. There can be also viewed the record in MARC21 format. == Autoindexing == In 2012 was released beta version of autoindexing application. It is accessible on Autoindexing. Users enter chosen text into indexing field and activate indexing. In few seconds the terms describing content are displayed. == PSH structure == PSH is a tree structure with 44 thematic sections. Subject headings are included in a hierarchy of six (or seven) levels according to their semantic content and specificity. There are hierarchical, associative ("see also") and equivalence ("see") relations in PSH. Hierarchical relations are represented by broader and narrower terms (e.g. physical diagnostic methods is broader term to electrocardiography, and on the other hand, electrocardiography is narrower term to physical diagnostic methods). Equivalence relations link subject headings with their nonpreferred versions (e.g. electrocardiography and ECG). Moreover, associative relations are used to link related subject headings from different parts of PSH, regardless their affiliation to a section, (e.g. electrocardiography: see also cardiology). Every subject heading belongs to just one section, which has its own two-character abbreviation, assigned to every subject heading of the section. This enables users to recognize affiliation of subject headings from lower levels to the thematic sections. The 44 thematic sections have following root nodes: == PSH formats == The main format for storage, maintenance and sharing PSH is the MARC 21 Format for Authority Data, which is implemented in library automated systems. PSH is also available in SKOS, using RDF/XML syntax, which is a version suitable for web distribution. Single headings can be accessed on the PSH website through URI links. Alternatively, the whole vocabulary can be downloaded in one file. It is possible to display tags from PSH (metadata snippets – Dublin Core and CommonTag), which can be embedded in an HTML document to provide its semantic description in a machine-readable way. == New subject headings == New subject headings are primarily obtained through the log analysis in the National Technical Library's on-line catalogue of documents, which are the terms used by end-users when searching various documents. Google Analytics service is now used for gaining search queries used by users. Within the data analysis, users queries are divided into seven categories that contain the title of the document, person, subject, action, institution, geographical terms and others. Then the candidates for new preferred terms and non-preferred terms are identified in the subject category. Users can suggest preferred or non-preferred terms through the web form or via e-mail psh(@)techlib.cz. == PSH and Creative Commons == PSH/SKOS has been available under the Creative Commons License CC BY 3.0 CZ (Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Czech Republic)since 2011. Users are free to copy, distribute, display and perform the work and make derivative works, but they must give the original author credit and if they alter, transform, or build upon this work, they have to distribute the resulting work only under a licence identical to this one. Users can download all data in one zip file, which is continuously updated.

  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 →
• 

  Automatic scorer

  An automatic scorer is the computerized scoring system to keep track of scoring in ten-pin bowling. It was introduced en masse in bowling alleys in the 1970s and combined with mechanical pinsetters to detect overturned pins. By eliminating the need for manual score-keeping, these systems have introduced new bowlers into the game who otherwise would not participate because they had to count the score themselves, as many do not understand the mathematical formula involved in bowler scoring. At first, people were skeptical about whether a computer could keep an accurate score. In the twenty-first century, automatic scorers are used in most bowling centers around the world. The three manufacturers of these specialty computers have been Brunswick Bowling, AMF Bowling (later QubicaAMF), and RCA. == History == Automatic equipment is considered a cornerstone of the modern bowling center. The traditional bowling center of the early 20th century was advanced in automation when the pinsetter person ("pin boy"), who set back up by hand the bowled down pins, was replaced by a machine that automatically replaced the pins in their proper play positions. This machine came out in the 1950s. A detection system was developed from the pinsetter mechanism in the 1960s that could tell which pins had been knocked down, and that information could be transferred to a digital computer. Automatic electronic scoring was first conceived by Robert Reynolds, who was described by a newspaper story at the time as "a West Coast electronics calculator expert." He worked with the technical staff of Brunswick Bowling to develop it. The goal was realized in the late 1960s when a specialized computer was designed for the purpose of automatic scorekeeping for bowling. The field test for the automatic scorer took place at Village Lanes bowling center, Chicago in 1967. The scoring machine received approval for official use by the American Bowling Congress in August of that year. They were first used in national official league gaming on October 10, 1967. In November, Brunswick announced that they were accepting orders for the new digital computer, which cost around $3,000 per bowling lane. Bowling centers that installed these new automatic scoring devices in the 1970s charged a ten cents extra per line of scoring for the convenience. == Description == Each Automatic Scorer computer unit kept score for four lanes. It had two bowler identification panels serving two lanes each. The bowler pushed it into his named position when his turn came up so the computer knew who was bowling and score accordingly. After the bowler rolled the bowling ball down the lane and knocked down pins, the pinsetter detected which pins were down and relayed this information back to the computer for scoring. The result was then printed on a scoresheet and projected overhead onto a large screen for all to see. The Automatic Scorer digital computer was mathematically accurate, however the detection system at the pinsetter mechanism sometimes reported the wrong number of pins knocked down. The computer could be corrected manually for any errors in the system; similarly, human errors, such as neglecting to move the bowler identification mechanism, could be corrected for by manual action. The scorer could take into account bowlers' handicaps and could adjust for late-arriving bowlers. The automatic scorer is directly connected to the foul detection unit. As a result, foul line violations are automatically scored. Brunswick had put ten years of research and development into the Automatic Scorer, and by 1972 there were over 500 of these computers installed in bowling centers around the world. AMF Bowling, competitor to Brunswick, entered into the automatic scorer computer field during the 1970s and their systems were installed into their brand of bowling centers. By 1974, RCA was also making these computers for automatic scoring. == Reception and further developments == The purposes of the computerized scoring were to avoid errors by human scorers and to prevent cheating. It had the side benefit of speeding up the progress of the game and introducing new bowlers to the game. Score-keeping for bowling is based on a formula that many new to bowling were not familiar with and thought difficult to learn. These casual bowlers unfamiliar with the formula thought the scores given by the computers were confusing. Some bowlers were not comfortable with automatic scorers when they were introduced in the 1970s, so kept score using the traditional method on paper score sheets. The introduction of this device increased the popularity of the sport. Automatic scorers came to be considered a normal part of modern bowling installations worldwide, with owners and managers saying that bowlers expect such equipment to be present in bowling establishments and that business increased following their introduction. Brunswick introduced a color television style automatic scorer in 1983. Bowling center owners could use these style automatic scorers for advertising, management, videos, and live television. By the 2010s, these types of electronic visual displays could show bowler avatars and social media connections to publicize the bowlers' scores. Some are capable of being extended entertainment systems of games for children and adults. Some scoring systems support variations on traditional bowling, such as different kinds of bingo games where certain pins have to be knocked down at certain times or practice regimes where certain spares have to be accomplished. By this point, QubicaAMF Worldwide, an outgrowth of AMF, was one of the leading providers of bowling scoring equipment.

  Read more →
• 

  Artificial intelligence safety institute

  An artificial intelligence safety institute is a type of state-backed organization aiming to evaluate and ensure the safety of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) models, also called frontier AI models. AI safety gained prominence in 2023, notably with public declarations about potential existential risks from AI. During the AI Safety Summit in November 2023, the United Kingdom and the United States both created their own AISI. During the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, international leaders agreed to form a network of AI Safety Institutes, comprising institutes from the UK, the US, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, Canada and the European Union. In 2025, the UK's AI Safety Institute was renamed the "AI Security Institute", and its US counterpart became the Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI). == Timeline == In 2023, Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, expressed his intention to "make the UK not just the intellectual home but the geographical home of global AI safety regulation" and unveiled plans for an AI Safety Summit. He emphasized the need for independent safety evaluations, stating that AI companies cannot "mark their own homework". During the summit in November 2023, the UK AISI was officially established as an evolution of the Frontier AI Taskforce, and the US AISI as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Japan followed by launching an AI safety institute in February 2024. Politico reported in April 2024 that many AI companies had not shared pre-deployment access to their most advanced AI models for evaluation. Meta's president of global affairs Nick Clegg said that many AI companies were waiting for the UK and the US AI Safety Institutes to work out common evaluation rules and procedures. An agreement was indeed concluded between the UK and the US in April 2024 to collaborate on at least one joint safety test. Initially established in London, the UK AI Safety Institute announced in May 2024 that it would open an office in San Francisco, where many AI companies are located. This is part of a plan to "set new, international standards on AI safety", according to UK's technology minister Michele Donelan. == International network == At the AI Seoul Summit in May 2024, the European Union and other countries agreed to create their own AI safety institutes, forming an international network. In July 2025, the international network held an exercise to explore issues with evaluating AI agents, especially when it came to leaking sensitive information or cybersecurity. Network members also met at NeurIPS 2025 in the city of San Diego. == Specific institutes == === Australia === The Albanese government announced the creation of the Australian AI Safety Institute on 25 November 2025. === Canada === Canada announced in April 2024 that it would create an AI safety institute, and such an institute was officially founded in November 2024. The institute is housed under Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, though it also partners with the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). It is supported by a budget of CA$50,000,000 for a five-year timespan. === European Union === The EU AI office, founded in May 2024, is a member of the international network of AI safety institutes. === France === On 31 January 2025, the government of France created the Institut national pour l'évaluation et la sécurité de l'intelligence artificielle (INESIA), or the National Institute for AI Evaluation and Security. === India === The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology held consultations with Meta Platforms, Google, Microsoft, IBM, OpenAI, NASSCOM, Broadband India Forum, Software Alliance, Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), The Quantum Hub, Digital Empowerment Foundation, and Access Now on October 7, 2024, in relation to the establishment of the AI Safety Institute. The decision was made to shift focus from regulation to standards-setting, risk identification, and damage detection—all of which require interoperable technologies. The AISI may spend the ₹20 crore allotted to the Safe and Trusted Pillar of the IndiaAI Mission for the initial budget. Future funding may come from other components of the IndiaAI Mission. UNESCO and MeitY began consulting on AI Readiness Assessment Methodology under Safety and Ethics in Artificial Intelligence from 2024. It is to encourage the ethical and responsible use of AI in industries. The study will find areas where government can become involved, especially in attempts to strengthen institutional and regulatory capabilities. Minister for Electronics & Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw announced the creation of an IndiaAI Safety Institute on January 30, 2025, to ensure the ethical and safe application of AI models. The institute will promote domestic R&D that is grounded in India's social, economic, cultural, and linguistic diversity and is based on Indian datasets. With the help of academic and research institutions, as well as private sector partners, the institute will follow the hub-and-spoke approach to carry out projects within Safe and Trusted Pillar of the IndiaAI Mission. It operates under a "hub-and-spoke" model with collaboration from academic institutions (e.g., IITs), tech firms, and international organizations like UNESCO. === Japan === The Japan AISI (or J-AISI) was founded in February 2024. Part of the Information Technology Promotion Agency, it employs about 23 people. The institute consists of the Council of AISI, the AISI Steering Committee, and a secretariat with six teams. Akiko Murakami (previously of IBM Japan and Sompo Japan) serves as the institute's executive director, and Kenji Hiramoto and Suguru Nishimura serve as the institute's two deputy executive directors. === Kenya === Kenya agreed to join the international network of AI safety institutes, but the country has not announced any details yet. It is the only African state in the network. === Singapore === The Digital Trust Centre was initially founded in June 2022. In May 2024, it was renamed to the Singapore AISI. Part of Nanyang Technological University, the institute partners with Infocomm Media Development Authority and is supported by an investment of S$10,000,000 per year. === South Korea === South Korea announced in May 2024 that it would create an AI safety institute under the umbrella of the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute. It will be supported by a tentative investment of somewhere between 10 and 20 million South Korean won per year, and employ at least 30 people. The institute was founded in November 2024 and is based in Bundang District within the city of Seongnam. === United Kingdom === The United Kingdom founded in April 2023 a safety organisation called Frontier AI Taskforce, with an initial budget of £100 million. In November 2023, it evolved into the AI Safety Institute, and continued to be led by Ian Hogarth. The AISI is part of the United Kingdom's Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. The United Kingdom's AI strategy aims to balance safety and innovation. Unlike the European Union which adopted the AI Act, the UK is reluctant to legislate early, considering that it may lower the sector's growth, and that laws might be rendered obsolete by technological progress. In May 2024, the institute open-sourced an AI safety tool called "Inspect", which evaluates AI model capabilities such as reasoning and their degree of autonomy. In February 2025, the UK body was renamed the AI Security Institute. Observers saw the name change as a signal that the institute will not focus on ethical issues such as algorithmic bias or freedom of speech in AI applications. === United States === The US AISI was founded in November 2023 as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This happened the day after the signature of the Executive Order 14110. In February 2024, Joe Biden's former economic policy adviser Elizabeth Kelly was appointed to lead it. In February 2024, the US government created the US AI Safety Institute Consortium (AISIC), regrouping more than 200 organizations such as Google, Anthropic or Microsoft. In March 2024, a budget of $10 million was allocated. Observers noted that this investment is relatively small, especially considering the presence of many big AI companies in the US. The NIST itself, which hosts the AISI, is also known for its chronic lack of funding. Biden administration's request for additional funding was met with further budget cuts from congressional appropriators. Under President Trump, plans for members of the agency to attend the February 2025 AI Action Summit in Paris were scrapped. The US and the UK refused to sign the summit's final communique. US Vice President JD Vance said "pro-growth AI policies" should be prioritised over safety. The name of the agency was changed in June 2025 to the Center for AI Standards and Innovation

  Read more →
• 

  Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence

  The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence (GPAI, pronounced "gee-pay") is an international initiative established to guide the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) in a manner that respects human rights and the shared democratic values of its members. The partnership was first proposed by Canada and France at the 2018 44th G7 summit, and officially launched in June 2020. GPAI is hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). GPAI seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by supporting research and applied activities in areas that are directly relevant to policymakers in the realm of AI. It brings together experts from industry, civil society, governments, and academia to collaborate on the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence. == History == The Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence was announced on the margins of the 2018 G7 Summit by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and French President Emmanuel Macron. It officially launched on June 15, 2020 with fifteen founding members: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) hosts a dedicated secretariat to support GPAI's governing bodies and activities. UNESCO joined the partnership in December 2020 as an observer. On November 11, 2021, Czechia, Israel and few more EU countries also joined the GPAI, bringing the total membership to 25 countries. Since the November 2022 summit, the list of members stands at 29. Austria, Chile, Finland, Malaysia, Norway, Slovakia and Switzerland were invited. The seven, however, are pending membership approval. == Membership == The following 29 members of the GPAI are: Argentina Australia Belgium Brazil Canada Czech Republic Denmark France Germany India Ireland Israel Italy Japan Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Poland Republic of Korea Senegal Serbia Singapore Slovenia Spain Sweden Turkey United Kingdom United States European Union Invited members: Austria (pending membership approval) Chile (pending membership approval) Finland (pending membership approval) Malaysia (pending membership approval) Norway (pending membership approval) Slovakia (pending membership approval) Switzerland (pending membership approval) == Organization == GPAI's experts collaborate across several Working Groups themes: Responsible AI (including an ad-hoc subgroup on AI and Pandemic Response), Data Governance, Future of Work, and Innovation & Commercialization. GPAI's Working Groups are supported by two Centres of Expertise: one in Montreal that supports the first two Working Groups, and one in Paris that supports the latter two. It also has a Steering Committee, the elected chair of which has also been to date elected chair of the Multi Stakeholder Group (MEG). These chairs have been: Jordan Zed and Baroness Joanna Shields (Shields, MEG chair; 2020-2021), Joanna Shields and Renaud Vedel (Shields, MEG chair; 2021-2022), Yoichi Iida and Inma Martinez (Martinez, MEG chair; 2023-2024) GPAI has a rotating presidency and host (much like the G7). The presidencies to date have been: Canada (2020) France (2021) Japan (2022) India (2023)

  Read more →