AI Grammar Tagalog

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

List of Haskell software and tools

This is a list of Haskell software and tools, including compilers, interpreters, build tools, package managers, integrated development environments, libraries, and other development utilities. == Compilers, interpreters and editors == Emacs — text editor Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) Hugs — bytecode interpreter (discontinued) IntelliJ IDEA — IDE with Haskell support via plugins Vim — text editor Visual Studio Code — editor/IDE with Haskell support via extensions == Libraries and frameworks == Parsec — parser combinator library Servant — web framework Yesod — web framework == Build tools and package management == Cabal — build system and packaging infrastructure Haskell Platform — bundled distribution of Haskell tools and libraries (deprecated) Stack — build tool and dependency manager == Language tools and static analysis == Fourmolu — code formatter based on Ormolu Haskell Language Server — implementation of the Language Server Protocol for Haskell HLint — source code suggestion and linting tool Hoogle — Haskell API search engine Ormolu — code formatter Stan — static analysis tool Stylish Haskell — source code formatter == Interactive environments == GHCi — interactive REPL for the Glasgow Haskell Compiler IHaskell — Jupyter kernel for Haskell == Debugging and profiling tools == hp2ps — heap profiling visualization tool ThreadScope — parallel execution visualizer for Haskell programs == Documentation generators == Haddock — API documentation generator for Haskell == Parser and lexer generators == Alex — lexer generator for Haskell Happy — parser generator for Haskell == Testing frameworks == HUnit — unit testing framework QuickCheck — property-based testing library == Version control == Darcs — distributed version control system written in Haskell
Read more →
Conditional random field

Conditional random fields (CRFs) are a class of statistical modeling methods often applied in pattern recognition and machine learning and used for structured prediction. Whereas a classifier predicts a label for a single sample without considering "neighbouring" samples, a CRF can take context into account. To do so, the predictions are modelled as a graphical model, which represents the presence of dependencies between the predictions. The kind of graph used depends on the application. For example, in natural language processing, "linear chain" CRFs are popular, for which each prediction is dependent only on its immediate neighbours. In image processing, the graph typically connects locations to nearby and/or similar locations to enforce that they receive similar predictions. Other examples where CRFs are used are: labeling or parsing of sequential data for natural language processing or biological sequences, part-of-speech tagging, shallow parsing, named entity recognition, gene finding, peptide critical functional region finding, and object recognition and image segmentation in computer vision. == Description == CRFs are a type of discriminative undirected probabilistic graphical model. Lafferty, McCallum and Pereira define a CRF on observations X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {X}}} and random variables Y {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}} as follows: Let G = ( V , E ) {\displaystyle G=(V,E)} be a graph such that Y = ( Y v ) v ∈ V {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}=({\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v})_{v\in V}} , so that Y {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}} is indexed by the vertices of G {\displaystyle G} . Then ( X , Y ) {\displaystyle ({\boldsymbol {X}},{\boldsymbol {Y}})} is a conditional random field when each random variable Y v {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v}} , conditioned on X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {X}}} , obeys the Markov property with respect to the graph; that is, its probability is dependent only on its neighbours in G and not its past states: P ( Y v | X , { Y w : w ≠ v } ) = P ( Y v | X , { Y w : w ∼ v } ) {\displaystyle P({\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v}|{\boldsymbol {X}},\{{\boldsymbol {Y}}_{w}:w\neq v\})=P({\boldsymbol {Y}}_{v}|{\boldsymbol {X}},\{{\boldsymbol {Y}}_{w}:w\sim v\})} , where w ∼ v {\displaystyle {\mathit {w}}\sim v} means that w {\displaystyle w} and v {\displaystyle v} are neighbors in G {\displaystyle G} . What this means is that a CRF is an undirected graphical model whose nodes can be divided into exactly two disjoint sets X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {X}}} and Y {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {Y}}} , the observed and output variables, respectively; the conditional distribution p ( Y | X ) {\displaystyle p({\boldsymbol {Y}}|{\boldsymbol {X}})} is then modeled. === Inference === For general graphs, the problem of exact inference in CRFs is intractable. The inference problem for a CRF is basically the same as for an MRF and the same arguments hold. However, there exist special cases for which exact inference is feasible: If the graph is a chain or a tree, message passing algorithms yield exact solutions. The algorithms used in these cases are analogous to the forward-backward and Viterbi algorithm for the case of HMMs. If the CRF only contains pair-wise potentials and the energy is submodular, combinatorial min cut/max flow algorithms yield exact solutions. If exact inference is impossible, several algorithms can be used to obtain approximate solutions. These include: Loopy belief propagation Alpha expansion Mean field inference Linear programming relaxations === Parameter learning === Learning the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } is usually done by maximum likelihood learning for p ( Y i | X i ; θ ) {\displaystyle p(Y_{i}|X_{i};\theta )} . If all nodes have exponential family distributions and all nodes are observed during training, this optimization is convex. It can be solved for example using gradient descent algorithms, or Quasi-Newton methods such as the L-BFGS algorithm. On the other hand, if some variables are unobserved, the inference problem has to be solved for these variables. Exact inference is intractable in general graphs, so approximations have to be used. === Examples === In sequence modeling, the graph of interest is usually a chain graph. An input sequence of observed variables X {\displaystyle X} represents a sequence of observations and Y {\displaystyle Y} represents a hidden (or unknown) state variable that needs to be inferred given the observations. The Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} are structured to form a chain, with an edge between each Y i − 1 {\displaystyle Y_{i-1}} and Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} . As well as having a simple interpretation of the Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} as "labels" for each element in the input sequence, this layout admits efficient algorithms for: model training, learning the conditional distributions between the Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} and feature functions from some corpus of training data. decoding, determining the probability of a given label sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} given X {\displaystyle X} . inference, determining the most likely label sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} given X {\displaystyle X} . The conditional dependency of each Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} on X {\displaystyle X} is defined through a fixed set of feature functions of the form f ( i , Y i − 1 , Y i , X ) {\displaystyle f(i,Y_{i-1},Y_{i},X)} , which can be thought of as measurements on the input sequence that partially determine the likelihood of each possible value for Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} . The model assigns each feature a numerical weight and combines them to determine the probability of a certain value for Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} . Linear-chain CRFs have many of the same applications as conceptually simpler hidden Markov models (HMMs), but relax certain assumptions about the input and output sequence distributions. An HMM can loosely be understood as a CRF with very specific feature functions that use constant probabilities to model state transitions and emissions. Conversely, a CRF can loosely be understood as a generalization of an HMM that makes the constant transition probabilities into arbitrary functions that vary across the positions in the sequence of hidden states, depending on the input sequence. Notably, in contrast to HMMs, CRFs can contain any number of feature functions, the feature functions can inspect the entire input sequence X {\displaystyle X} at any point during inference, and the range of the feature functions need not have a probabilistic interpretation. == Variants == === Higher-order CRFs and semi-Markov CRFs === CRFs can be extended into higher order models by making each Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} dependent on a fixed number k {\displaystyle k} of previous variables Y i − k , . . . , Y i − 1 {\displaystyle Y_{i-k},...,Y_{i-1}} . In conventional formulations of higher order CRFs, training and inference are only practical for small values of k {\displaystyle k} (such as k ≤ 5), since their computational cost increases exponentially with k {\displaystyle k} . However, another recent advance has managed to ameliorate these issues by leveraging concepts and tools from the field of Bayesian nonparametrics. Specifically, the CRF-infinity approach constitutes a CRF-type model that is capable of learning infinitely-long temporal dynamics in a scalable fashion. This is effected by introducing a novel potential function for CRFs that is based on the Sequence Memoizer (SM), a nonparametric Bayesian model for learning infinitely-long dynamics in sequential observations. To render such a model computationally tractable, CRF-infinity employs a mean-field approximation of the postulated novel potential functions (which are driven by an SM). This allows for devising efficient approximate training and inference algorithms for the model, without undermining its capability to capture and model temporal dependencies of arbitrary length. There exists another generalization of CRFs, the semi-Markov conditional random field (semi-CRF), which models variable-length segmentations of the label sequence Y {\displaystyle Y} . This provides much of the power of higher-order CRFs to model long-range dependencies of the Y i {\displaystyle Y_{i}} , at a reasonable computational cost. Finally, large-margin models for structured prediction, such as the structured Support Vector Machine can be seen as an alternative training procedure to CRFs. === Latent-dynamic conditional random field === Latent-dynamic conditional random fields (LDCRF) or discriminative probabilistic latent variable models (DPLVM) are a type of CRFs for sequence tagging tasks. They are latent variable models that are trained discriminatively. In an LDCRF, like in any sequence tagging task, given a sequence of observations x = x 1 , … , x n {\displaystyle x_{1},\dots ,x_{n}} , the main problem the model must solve is how to assign a sequence of labels y = y 1 , … , y n {\displaystyle y_{1},\dots ,y_{n}} from one finite set
Read more →
Automated Mathematician

The Automated Mathematician (AM) is one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was created by Douglas Lenat in Lisp, and in 1977 led to Lenat being awarded the IJCAI Computers and Thought Award. AM worked by generating and modifying short Lisp programs which were then interpreted as defining various mathematical concepts; for example, a program that tested equality between the length of two lists was considered to represent the concept of numerical equality, while a program that produced a list whose length was the product of the lengths of two other lists was interpreted as representing the concept of multiplication. The system had elaborate heuristics for choosing which programs to extend and modify, based on the experiences of working mathematicians in solving mathematical problems. == Controversy == Lenat claimed that the system was composed of hundreds of data structures called "concepts", together with hundreds of "heuristic rules" and a simple flow of control: "AM repeatedly selects the top task from the agenda and tries to carry it out. This is the whole control structure!" Yet the heuristic rules were not always represented as separate data structures; some had to be intertwined with the control flow logic. Some rules had preconditions that depended on the history, or otherwise could not be represented in the framework of the explicit rules. What's more, the published versions of the rules often involve vague terms that are not defined further, such as "If two expressions are structurally similar, ..." (Rule 218) or "... replace the value obtained by some other (very similar) value..." (Rule 129). Another source of information is the user, via Rule 2: "If the user has recently referred to X, then boost the priority of any tasks involving X." Thus, it appears quite possible that much of the real discovery work is buried in unexplained procedures. Lenat claimed that the system had rediscovered both Goldbach's conjecture and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Later critics accused Lenat of over-interpreting the output of AM. In his paper Why AM and Eurisko appear to work, Lenat conceded that any system that generated enough short Lisp programs would generate ones that could be interpreted by an external observer as representing equally sophisticated mathematical concepts. However, he argued that this property was in itself interesting—and that a promising direction for further research would be to look for other languages in which short random strings were likely to be useful. == Successor == This intuition was the basis of AM's successor Eurisko, which attempted to generalize the search for mathematical concepts to the search for useful heuristics.
Read more →
Web intelligence

Web intelligence is the area of scientific research and development that explores the roles and makes use of artificial intelligence and information technology for new products, services and frameworks that are empowered by the World Wide Web. The term was coined in a paper written by Ning Zhong, Jiming Liu Yao and Y.Y. Ohsuga in the Computer Software and Applications Conference in 2000. == Research == The research about the web intelligence covers many fields – including data mining (in particular web mining), information retrieval, pattern recognition, predictive analytics, the semantic web, web data warehousing – typically with a focus on web personalization and adaptive websites.
Read more →
Wink Bingo

Wink Bingo is an online bingo website launched in 2008. It is part of Broadway Gaming Ireland DF Limited and is based and licensed in Ireland. == History == Wink Bingo launched in 2008 and under chief executive Eitan Boyd it grew to 60,000 active players within two years. It had an estimated £1.3 million profit in the first 11 months of trading, and by 2009 it had estimated annual revenue of £15 million. In 2009 Wink Bingo was purchased by 888 Holdings Plc, which operates a number of entertainment brands including 888casino, 888poker and 888sport. The initial up front fee was reported in the London Evening Standard to be £11 million, rising as high as £59.7 million depending on performance-based earn out arrangements. The acquisition included Daub Ltd’s other online bingo businesses Posh Bingo and Bingo Fabulous. In 2011, the sellers agreed to amend the terms and accept two subsequent payments in addition to the initial cost, of £9.2 million in May and £6.1 million in August. In 2011 Wink Bingo sponsored ITV2's The Only Way Is Essex, and other notable advertising campaigns have included sponsorship of Harry Hill's TV Burp. In 2014, Wink Bingo rebranded with an updated slogan 'Wink if you're in!', with an aim of creating a 'sunny, calm and inclusive' online destination, and an accompanying TV commercial featuring the Ottawan song D.I.S.C.O. re-recorded as B.I.N.G.O.. Wink also launched a new digital magazine, 'Winkly', and 'Winkipedia, a bingo encyclopedia'. Wink Bingo is available on desktop and as a mobile app. Wink launched Wink Slots in 2016 as a companion site to Wink Bingo. The Advertising Standards Authority has ruled on Wink Bingo's advertisements on a number of occasions. In August 2008, Wink ran a television ad which showed a midwife celebrating while at work at a hospital maternity unit. The ASA banned the ad, concluding that it condoned gambling in the workplace and suggested that it took priority over professional commitments. In June 2013, the Gambling Reform & Society Perception Group (GRASP) challenged the use of semi-naked "athletic" men together with the claim "Go on ... you know you want to" on an outdoor ad, suggesting it linked gambling to seduction and enhanced attractiveness. The complaint was not upheld. The site underwent another rebrand and pop art inspired redesign in April 2018, taking on a new tone of voice and a new slogan, "You’ve Earned It". An online shop was added, where players can redeem reward points for free play or vouchers for online high street retailers. In 2021 Wink Bingo was purchased by Saphalata Holdings, a company that forms part of the Broadway Gaming group. === Cancer Research UK campaign === In 2015 Wink Bingo began an open-ended partnership with the Peter Andre Fund to raise money for Cancer Research UK. Peter Andre also met with players who were selected in a raffle. == Awards ==
Read more →
Computational heuristic intelligence

Computational heuristic intelligence (CHI) refers to specialized programming techniques in computational intelligence (also called artificial intelligence, or AI). These techniques have the express goal of avoiding complexity issues, also called NP-hard problems, by using human-like techniques. They are best summarized as the use of exemplar-based methods (heuristics), rather than rule-based methods (algorithms). Hence the term is distinct from the more conventional computational algorithmic intelligence, or symbolic AI. An example of a CHI technique is the encoding specificity principle of Tulving and Thompson. In general, CHI principles are problem solving techniques used by people, rather than programmed into machines. It is by drawing attention to this key distinction that the use of this term is justified in a field already replete with confusing neologisms. Note that the legal systems of all modern human societies employ both heuristics (generalisations of cases) from individual trial records as well as legislated statutes (rules) as regulatory guides. Another recent approach to the avoidance of complexity issues is to employ feedback control rather than feedforward modeling as a problem-solving paradigm. This approach has been called computational cybernetics, because (a) the term 'computational' is associated with conventional computer programming techniques which represent a strategic, compiled, or feedforward model of the problem, and (b) the term 'cybernetic' is associated with conventional system operation techniques which represent a tactical, interpreted, or feedback model of the problem. Of course, real programs and real problems both contain both feedforward and feedback components. A real example which illustrates this point is that of human cognition, which clearly involves both perceptual (bottom-up, feedback, sensor-oriented) and conceptual (top-down, feedforward, motor-oriented) information flows and hierarchies. The AI engineer must choose between mathematical and cybernetic problem solution and machine design paradigms. This is not a coding (program language) issue, but relates to understanding the relationship between the declarative and procedural programming paradigms. The vast majority of STEM professionals never get the opportunity to design or implement pure cybernetic solutions. When pushed, most responders will dismiss the importance of any difference by saying that all code can be reduced to a mathematical model anyway. Unfortunately, not only is this belief false, it fails most spectacularly in many AI scenarios. Mathematical models are not time agnostic, but by their very nature are pre-computed, i.e. feedforward. Dyer [2012] and Feldman [2004] have independently investigated the simplest of all somatic governance paradigms, namely control of a simple jointed limb by a single flexor muscle. They found that it is impossible to determine forces from limb positions- therefore, the problem cannot have a pre-computed (feedforward) mathematical solution. Instead, a top-down command bias signal changes the threshold feedback level in the sensorimotor loop, e.g. the loop formed by the afferent and efferent nerves, thus changing the so-called ‘equilibrium point’ of the flexor muscle/ elbow joint system. An overview of the arrangement reveals that global postures and limb position are commanded in feedforward terms, using global displacements (common coding), with the forces needed being computed locally by feedback loops. This method of sensorimotor unit governance, which is based upon what Anatol Feldman calls the ‘equilibrium Point’ theory, is formally equivalent to a servomechanism such as a car's ‘cruise control’.
Read more →
Hardware for artificial intelligence

Specialized computer hardware is often used to execute artificial intelligence (AI) programs faster, and with less energy, such as Lisp machines, neuromorphic engineering, event cameras, and physical neural networks. Since 2017, several consumer grade CPUs and SoCs have on-die NPUs. As of 2023, the market for AI hardware is dominated by GPUs. As of the 2020s, AI computation is dominated by graphics processing units (GPUs) and newer domain-specific accelerators such as Google's Tensor Processing Units (TPUs), AMD's Instinct MI300 series, and various on-device neural-processing units (NPUs) found in consumer hardware. == Scope == For the purposes of this article, AI hardware refers to computing components and systems specifically designed or optimized to accelerate artificial-intelligence workloads such as machine-learning training or inference. This includes general-purpose accelerators used for AI (for example, GPUs) and domain-specific accelerators (for example, TPUs, NPUs, and other AI ASICs). Event-based cameras are sometimes discussed in the context of neuromorphic computing, but they are input sensors rather than AI compute devices. Conversely, components such as memristors are basic circuit elements rather than specialized AI hardware when considered alone. == Lisp machines == Lisp machines were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s to make artificial intelligence programs written in the programming language Lisp run faster. == Dataflow architecture == Dataflow architecture processors used for AI serve various purposes with varied implementations like the polymorphic dataflow Convolution Engine by Kinara (formerly Deep Vision), structure-driven dataflow by Hailo, and dataflow scheduling by Cerebras. == Component hardware == === AI accelerators === Since the 2010s, advances in computer hardware have led to more efficient methods for training deep neural networks that contain many layers of non-linear hidden units and a very large output layer. By 2019, graphics processing units (GPUs), often with AI-specific enhancements, had displaced central processing units (CPUs) as the dominant means to train large-scale commercial cloud AI. OpenAI estimated the hardware compute used in the largest deep learning projects from Alex Net (2012) to Alpha Zero (2017), and found a 300,000-fold increase in the amount of compute needed, with a doubling-time trend of 3.4 months. === General-purpose GPUs for AI === Since the 2010s, graphics processing units (GPUs) have been widely used to train and deploy deep learning models because of their highly parallel architecture and high memory bandwidth. Modern data-center GPUs include dedicated tensor or matrix-math units that accelerate neural-network operations. In 2022, NVIDIA introduced the Hopper-generation H100 GPU, adding FP8 precision support and faster interconnects for large-scale model training. AMD and other vendors have also developed GPUs and accelerators aimed at AI and high-performance computing workloads. === Domain-specific accelerators (ASICs / NPUs) === Beyond general-purpose GPUs, several companies have developed application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and neural processing units (NPUs) tailored for AI workloads. Google introduced the Tensor Processing Unit (TPU) in 2016 for deep-learning inference, with later generations supporting large-scale training through dense systolic-array designs and optical interconnects. Other vendors have released similar devices—such as Apple's Neural Engine and various on-device NPUs—that emphasize energy-efficient inference in mobile or edge computing environments. === Memory and interconnects === AI accelerators rely on fast memory and inter-chip links to manage the large data volumes of training and inference. High-bandwidth memory (HBM) stacks, standardized as HBM3 in 2022, provide terabytes-per-second throughput on modern GPUs and ASICs. These accelerators are often connected through dedicated fabrics such as NVIDIA's NVLink and NVSwitch or optical interconnects used in TPU systems to scale performance across thousands of chips.
Read more →
SUPS

In computational neuroscience, SUPS (for Synaptic Updates Per Second) or formerly CUPS (Connections Updates Per Second) is a measure of a neuronal network performance, useful in fields of neuroscience, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, and computer science. == Computing == For a processor or computer designed to simulate a neural network SUPS is measured as the product of simulated neurons N {\displaystyle N} and average connectivity c {\displaystyle c} (synapses) per neuron per second: S U P S = c × N {\displaystyle SUPS=c\times N} Depending on the type of simulation it is usually equal to the total number of synapses simulated. In an "asynchronous" dynamic simulation if a neuron spikes at υ {\displaystyle \upsilon } Hz, the average rate of synaptic updates provoked by the activity of that neuron is υ c N {\displaystyle \upsilon cN} . In a synchronous simulation with step Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} the number of synaptic updates per second would be c N Δ t {\displaystyle {\frac {cN}{\Delta t}}} . As Δ t {\displaystyle \Delta t} has to be chosen much smaller than the average interval between two successive afferent spikes, which implies Δ t < 1 υ N {\displaystyle \Delta t<{\frac {1}{\upsilon N}}} , giving an average of synaptic updates equal to υ c N 2 {\displaystyle \upsilon cN^{2}} . Therefore, spike-driven synaptic dynamics leads to a linear scaling of computational complexity O(N) per neuron, compared with the O(N2) in the "synchronous" case. == Records == Developed in the 1980s Adaptive Solutions' CNAPS-1064 Digital Parallel Processor chip is a full neural network (NNW). It was designed as a coprocessor to a host and has 64 sub-processors arranged in a 1D array and operating in a SIMD mode. Each sub-processor can emulate one or more neurons and multiple chips can be grouped together. At 25 MHz it is capable of 1.28 GMAC. After the presentation of the RN-100 (12 MHz) single neuron chip at Seattle 1991 Ricoh developed the multi-neuron chip RN-200. It had 16 neurons and 16 synapses per neuron. The chip has on-chip learning ability using a proprietary backdrop algorithm. It came in a 257-pin PGA encapsulation and drew 3.0 W at a maximum. It was capable of 3 GCPS (1 GCPS at 32 MHz). In 1991–97, Siemens developed the MA-16 chip, SYNAPSE-1 and SYNAPSE-3 Neurocomputer. The MA-16 was a fast matrix-matrix multiplier that can be combined to form systolic arrays. It could process 4 patterns of 16 elements each (16-bit), with 16 neuron values (16-bit) at a rate of 800 MMAC or 400 MCPS at 50 MHz. The SYNAPSE3-PC PCI card contained 2 MA-16 with a peak performance of 2560 MOPS (1.28 GMAC); 7160 MOPS (3.58 GMAC) when using three boards. In 2013, the K computer was used to simulate a neural network of 1.73 billion neurons with a total of 10.4 trillion synapses (1% of the human brain). The simulation ran for 40 minutes to simulate 1 s of brain activity at a normal activity level (4.4 on average). The simulation required 1 Petabyte of storage.
Read more →
OrCam device

OrCam devices such as OrCam MyEye are portable, artificial vision devices that allow visually impaired people to understand text and identify objects through audio feedback, describing what they are unable to see. Reuters described an important part of how it works as "a wireless smartcamera" which, when attached outside eyeglass frames, can read and verbalize text, and also supermarket barcodes. This information is converted to spoken words and entered "into the user’s ear." Face-recognition is also part of OrCam's feature set. == Devices == OrCam Technologies Ltd has created three devices; OrCam MyEye 2.0, OrCam MyEye 1, and OrCam MyReader. OrCam My Eye 2.0: OrCam debuted the second-generation model, the OrCam MyEye 2.0 in December 2017. About the size of a finger, the MyEye 2.0 is battery-powered, and has been compressed into a self-contained device. The device snaps onto any eyeglass frame magnetically. Orcam 2.0 is small and light (22.5 grams/0.8 ounces) with functionality to restore independence to the visually impaired. It comes in two versions. The basic model can read text, and a more advanced one adds features such as face recognition and barcode reading. As of July 2023, the retail cost is between $4000 and $6000 (USD). == Clinical Studies == JAMA Ophthalmology: In 2016 JAMA Ophthalmology conducted a study involving 12 legally blind participants to evaluate the usefulness of a portable artificial vision device (OrCam) for patients with low vision. The results showed that the OrCam device improved the patient's ability to perform tasks simulating those of daily living, such as reading a message on an electronic device, a newspaper article or a menu. Wills Eye: Wills Eye was a clinical study designed to measure the impact of the OrCam device on the quality of life of patients with End-stage Glaucoma. The conclusion was that OrCam, a novel artificial vision device using a mini-camera mounted on eyeglasses, allowed legally blind patients with end-stage glaucoma to read independently, subsequently improving their quality of life. == Employee testing == The New York Times described how a pre-release OrCam device was used by a Coloboma-impaired employee of the device's developer in 2013 for grocery shopping. It was the small size of the prototype rather than the functionality that gave her added mobility in an Israeli store's aisles. Added life-enhancement was described: "to both recognize and speak .. bus numbers .. traffic lights." == Social aspects == In contrast to an early version of Google Glass, which "failed ... because .. Glass wearers were ..mocked", early OrCam devices used designs that "clip unobtrusively on your shirt or perhaps your belt." In addition, it does not record sounds or images, what was called "the privacy puzzle that stumped Google. One 2018 technology reviewer wrote that he wished it had a headphone jack "so it would be less disruptive in places where others are working." An attempt was made to use bone conduction. == USA introduction == In 2018 a team headed by New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind introduced use of OrCam devices to ten individuals screened for what he termed "new Israeli technology that really makes a difference to the blind." Although not the first USA success, it was more focused than a publicly funded project that was authorized in 2016 by a California government agency. Also in 2016 the Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind demonstrated its use. == Technology == In the area of hardware, miniaturization has been quite important, but one major area, software, was mentioned by Assemblyman Hikind, and reported by The Times of Israel is the "AI-driven algorithms" that "reports .. how many people are in a room. In addition to reading printed text, it can also aid in "seeing" what is on a television or computer screen. Although OrCam can't help with handwritten information, it can reuse information, the basis of recognizing "US currency, and even faces." === Features === While early language support was for English, French, German, Hebrew and Spanish, others now available include Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese and Swedish. == History == OrCam Technologies Ltd was founded in 2010 by Professor Amnon Shashua and Ziv Aviram. Before co-founding OrCam, the two in 1999 co-founded Mobileye, an Israeli company that develops vision-based advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) providing warnings for collision prevention and mitigation, which was acquired by Intel for $15.3 billion in 2017. OrCam launched OrCam MyEye in 2013 after years of development and testing, and began selling it commercially in 2015. In its early years, the company raised $22 million, $6 million of which came from Intel Capital. By 2014, Intel, which was also investing in Google Glass, had invested $15 million in Orcam. In March 2017, OrCam had raised $41 million in capital, making it worth $600 million. === Marketing === One outcome of initial marketing in the USA was that they "reached a deal with the California Department of Rehabilitation, ...qualifying blind and visually impaired state residents." == OrCam Technologies Ltd == OrCam Technologies Ltd. is the Israeli-based company producing these OrCam devices, which are wearable artificial intelligence space. The company develops and manufactures assistive technology devices for individuals who are visually impaired, partially sighted, blind, print disabilities, or have other disabilities. OrCam headquarters is located in Jerusalem, operating under the company name OrCam Technologies Ltd. OrCam has over 150 employees, is headquartered in Jerusalem, and has offices in New York, Toronto, and London. == Awards == 2018 Last Gadget Standing Winner 2018 CES Innovation Awards Honoree in Accessible Tech 2017 NAIDEX Innovation Award 2016 Louise Braille Corporate Recognition Award 2016 Silmo-d-Or Award
Read more →
Mountain car problem

Mountain Car, a standard testing domain in Reinforcement learning, is a problem in which an under-powered car must drive up a steep hill. Since gravity is stronger than the car's engine, even at full throttle, the car cannot simply accelerate up the steep slope. The car is situated in a valley and must learn to leverage potential energy by driving up the opposite hill before the car is able to make it to the goal at the top of the rightmost hill. The domain has been used as a test bed in various reinforcement learning papers. == Introduction == The mountain car problem, although fairly simple, is commonly applied because it requires a reinforcement learning agent to learn on two continuous variables: position and velocity. For any given state (position and velocity) of the car, the agent is given the possibility of driving left, driving right, or not using the engine at all. In the standard version of the problem, the agent receives a negative reward at every time step when the goal is not reached; the agent has no information about the goal until an initial success. == History == The mountain car problem appeared first in Andrew Moore's PhD thesis (1990). It was later more strictly defined in Singh and Sutton's reinforcement learning paper with eligibility traces. The problem became more widely studied when Sutton and Barto added it to their book Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (1998). Throughout the years many versions of the problem have been used, such as those which modify the reward function, termination condition, and the start state. == Techniques used to solve mountain car == Q-learning and similar techniques for mapping discrete states to discrete actions need to be extended to be able to deal with the continuous state space of the problem. Approaches often fall into one of two categories, state space discretization or function approximation. === Discretization === In this approach, two continuous state variables are pushed into discrete states by bucketing each continuous variable into multiple discrete states. This approach works with properly tuned parameters but a disadvantage is information gathered from one state is not used to evaluate another state. Tile coding can be used to improve discretization and involves continuous variables mapping into sets of buckets offset from one another. Each step of training has a wider impact on the value function approximation because when the offset grids are summed, the information is diffused. === Function approximation === Function approximation is another way to solve the mountain car. By choosing a set of basis functions beforehand, or by generating them as the car drives, the agent can approximate the value function at each state. Unlike the step-wise version of the value function created with discretization, function approximation can more cleanly estimate the true smooth function of the mountain car domain. === Eligibility traces === One aspect of the problem involves the delay of actual reward. The agent is not able to learn about the goal until a successful completion. Given a naive approach for each trial the car can only backup the reward of the goal slightly. This is a problem for naive discretization because each discrete state will only be backed up once, taking a larger number of episodes to learn the problem. This problem can be alleviated via the mechanism of eligibility traces, which will automatically backup the reward given to states before, dramatically increasing the speed of learning. Eligibility traces can be viewed as a bridge from temporal difference learning methods to Monte Carlo methods. == Technical details == The mountain car problem has undergone many iterations. This section focuses on the standard well-defined version from Sutton (2008). === State variables === Two-dimensional continuous state space. V e l o c i t y = ( − 0.07 , 0.07 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=(-0.07,0.07)} P o s i t i o n = ( − 1.2 , 0.6 ) {\displaystyle Position=(-1.2,0.6)} === Actions === One-dimensional discrete action space. m o t o r = ( l e f t , n e u t r a l , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle motor=(left,neutral,right)} === Reward === For every time step: r e w a r d = − 1 {\displaystyle reward=-1} === Update function === For every time step: A c t i o n = [ − 1 , 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle Action=[-1,0,1]} V e l o c i t y = V e l o c i t y + ( A c t i o n ) ∗ 0.001 + cos ⁡ ( 3 ∗ P o s i t i o n ) ∗ ( − 0.0025 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=Velocity+(Action)0.001+\cos(3Position)(-0.0025)} P o s i t i o n = P o s i t i o n + V e l o c i t y {\displaystyle Position=Position+Velocity} === Starting condition === Optionally, many implementations include randomness in both parameters to show better generalized learning. P o s i t i o n = − 0.5 {\displaystyle Position=-0.5} V e l o c i t y = 0.0 {\displaystyle Velocity=0.0} === Termination condition === End the simulation when: P o s i t i o n ≥ 0.6 {\displaystyle Position\geq 0.6} == Variations == There are many versions of the mountain car which deviate in different ways from the standard model. Variables that vary include but are not limited to changing the constants (gravity and steepness) of the problem so specific tuning for specific policies become irrelevant and altering the reward function to affect the agent's ability to learn in a different manner. An example is changing the reward to be equal to the distance from the goal, or changing the reward to zero everywhere and one at the goal. Additionally, a 3D mountain car can be used, with a 4D continuous state space.
Read more →
Artificial general intelligence

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is a hypothetical type of artificial intelligence that matches or surpasses human capabilities across virtually all cognitive tasks. Beyond AGI, artificial superintelligence (ASI) would outperform the best human abilities across every domain by a wide margin. Unlike artificial narrow intelligence (ANI), whose competence is confined to well‑defined tasks, an AGI system can generalise knowledge, transfer skills between domains, and solve novel problems without task‑specific reprogramming. Creating AGI is a stated goal of technology companies such as OpenAI, Google, xAI, and Meta. A 2020 survey identified 72 active AGI research and development projects across 37 countries. AGI is a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. Contention exists over whether AGI represents an existential risk. Some AI experts and industry figures have stated that mitigating the risk of human extinction posed by AGI should be a global priority. Others find the development of AGI to be in too remote a stage to present such a risk. == Terminology == AGI is also known as strong AI, full AI, human-level AI, human-level intelligent AI, or general intelligent action. The term "artificial general intelligence" was used in 1997 by Mark Gubrud in a discussion of the implications of fully automated military production and operations. A mathematical formalism of AGI named AIXI was proposed in 2000 by Marcus Hutter, who defines intelligence as "an agent’s ability to achieve goals or succeed in a wide range of environments". This type of AGI has also been called "universal artificial intelligence". The term AGI was re-introduced and popularized by Shane Legg and Ben Goertzel around 2002. Some academic sources reserve the term "strong AI" for computer programs that will experience sentience or consciousness. In contrast, weak AI (or narrow AI) can solve a specific problem but lacks general cognitive abilities. Some academic sources use "weak AI" to refer more broadly to any programs that neither experience consciousness nor have a mind in the same sense as humans. Related concepts include artificial superintelligence and transformative AI. An artificial superintelligence (ASI) is a hypothetical type of AGI that is much more generally intelligent than humans, while the notion of transformative AI relates to AI having a large impact on society, for example, similar to the agricultural or industrial revolution. A framework for classifying AGI was proposed in 2023 by Google DeepMind researchers. They define five performance levels of AGI: emerging, competent, expert, virtuoso, and superhuman. For example, a competent AGI is defined as an AI that outperforms 50% of skilled adults in a wide range of non-physical tasks, and a superhuman AGI (i.e., an artificial superintelligence) is similarly defined but with a threshold of 100%. They consider large language models like ChatGPT or LLaMA 2 to be instances of emerging AGI (comparable to unskilled humans). Regarding the autonomy of AGI and associated risks, they define five levels: tool (fully in human control), consultant, collaborator, expert, and agent (fully autonomous). == Characteristics == There is no single agreed-upon definition of intelligence as applied to computers. Computer scientist John McCarthy wrote in 2007: "We cannot yet characterize in general what kinds of computational procedures we want to call intelligent." === Intelligence traits === Researchers generally hold that a system is required to do all of the following to be regarded as an AGI: reason, use strategy, solve puzzles, and make judgments under uncertainty, represent knowledge, including common sense knowledge, plan, learn, communicate in natural language, if necessary, integrate these skills in completion of any given goal. Many interdisciplinary approaches (e.g. cognitive science, computational intelligence, and decision making) consider additional traits such as imagination (the ability to form novel mental images and concepts) and autonomy. Computer-based systems exhibiting these capabilities are now widespread, with modern large language models demonstrating computational creativity, automated reasoning, and decision support simultaneously across domains. === Physical traits === Other capabilities are considered desirable in intelligent systems, as they may affect intelligence or aid in its expression. These include: the ability to sense (e.g. see, hear, etc.), and the ability to act (e.g. move and manipulate objects, change location to explore, etc.) This includes the ability to detect and respond to hazard. === Tests for human-level AGI === Several tests meant to confirm human-level AGI have been considered. ==== Turing test ==== The Turing test was proposed by Alan Turing in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence". This test involves a human judge engaging in natural language conversations with both a human and a machine designed to generate human-like responses. The machine passes the test if it can convince the judge that it is human a significant fraction of the time. Turing proposed this as a practical measure of machine intelligence, focusing on the ability to produce human-like responses rather than on the internal workings of the machine. The idea of the test is that the machine has to try and pretend to be a man, by answering questions put to it, and it will only pass if the pretence is reasonably convincing. A considerable portion of a jury, who should not be experts about machines, must be taken in by the pretence. In 2014, a chatbot named Eugene Goostman, designed to imitate a 13-year-old Ukrainian boy, reportedly passed a Turing Test event by convincing 33% of judges that it was human. However, this claim was met with significant skepticism from the AI research community, who questioned the test's implementation and its relevance to AGI. A 2025 pre‑registered, three‑party Turing‑test study by Cameron R. Jones and Benjamin K. Bergen showed that GPT-4.5 was judged to be the human in 73% of five‑minute text conversations—surpassing the 67% humanness rate of real confederates and meeting the researchers' criterion for having passed the test. ==== Ikea test ==== The "Ikea test", also known as the Flat Pack Furniture Test, involves an AI controlling a robot which attempts to assemble an Ikea flat-pack furniture product after having been shown the parts and instructions. As early as 2013, MIT's IkeaBot demonstrated fully autonomous multi-robot assembly of an IKEA Lack table in ten minutes, with no human intervention and no pre-programmed assembly instructions. The robots inferred the assembly sequence from the geometry of the parts alone. ==== Coffee test ==== Steve Wozniak proposed a test where a machine is required to enter an average American home and figure out how to make coffee. It must find the coffee machine, find the coffee, add water, find a mug, and brew the coffee by pushing the proper buttons. This test has been substantially approached across multiple systems. In January 2024, Figure AI's Figure 01 humanoid learned to operate a Keurig coffee machine autonomously after watching video demonstrations, using end-to-end neural networks to translate visual input into motor actions. In 2025, researchers at the University of Edinburgh published the ELLMER framework in Nature Machine Intelligence, demonstrating a robotic arm that interprets verbal instructions, analyses its surroundings, and autonomously makes coffee in dynamic kitchen environments — adapting to unforeseen obstacles in real time rather than following pre-programmed sequences. ==== Suleyman's test ==== Mustafa Suleyman's test proposes giving an AI model US$100,000 and asking it to obtain US$1 million. ==== Use of video-games ==== Adams, et al. propose that the ability to learn and succeed in a wide range of video games can be used to test AI intelligence. This range would include games unknown to the AGI developers before the test is administered. === AI-complete problems === A problem is informally called "AI-complete" or "AI-hard" if it is believed that AGI would be needed to solve it, because the solution is beyond the capabilities of a purpose-specific algorithm. == History == === Classical AI === Modern AI research began in the mid-1950s. The first generation of AI researchers were convinced that artificial general intelligence was possible and that it would exist in just a few decades. AI pioneer Herbert A. Simon wrote in 1965: "machines will be capable, within twenty years, of doing any work a man can do". Their predictions were the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke's fictional character HAL 9000, who embodied what AI researchers believed they could create by the year 2001. AI pioneer Marvin Minsky was a consultant on the project of making HAL 9000 as realistic as possible according to the consensus predictions of the time. He said in 1967, "Within a generation... the problem of
Read more →
Cross-validation (statistics)

Cross-validation, sometimes called rotation estimation or out-of-sample testing, is any of various similar model validation techniques for assessing how the results of a statistical analysis will generalize to an independent data set. Cross-validation includes resampling and sample splitting methods that use different portions of the data to test and train a model on different iterations. It is often used in settings where the goal is prediction, and one wants to estimate how accurately a predictive model will perform in practice. It can also be used to assess the quality of a fitted model and the stability of its parameters. In a prediction problem, a model is usually given a dataset of known data on which training is run (training dataset), and a dataset of unknown data (or first seen data) against which the model is tested (called the validation dataset or testing set). The goal of cross-validation is to test the model's ability to predict new data that was not used in estimating it, in order to flag problems like overfitting or selection bias and to give an insight on how the model will generalize to an independent dataset (i.e., an unknown dataset, for instance from a real problem). One round of cross-validation involves partitioning a sample of data into complementary subsets, performing the analysis on one subset (called the training set), and validating the analysis on the other subset (called the validation set or testing set). To reduce variability, in most methods multiple rounds of cross-validation are performed using different partitions, and the validation results are combined (e.g. averaged) over the rounds to give an estimate of the model's predictive performance. In summary, cross-validation combines (averages) measures of fitness in prediction to derive a more accurate estimate of model prediction performance. == Motivation == Assume a model with one or more unknown parameters, and a data set to which the model can be fit (the training data set). The fitting process optimizes the model parameters to make the model fit the training data as well as possible. If an independent sample of validation data is taken from the same population as the training data, it will generally turn out that the model does not fit the validation data as well as it fits the training data. The size of this difference is likely to be large especially when the size of the training data set is small, or when the number of parameters in the model is large. Cross-validation is a way to estimate the size of this effect. === Example: linear regression === In linear regression, there exist real response values y 1 , … , y n {\textstyle y_{1},\ldots ,y_{n}} , and n p-dimensional vector covariates x1, ..., xn. The components of the vector xi are denoted xi1, ..., xip. If least squares is used to fit a function in the form of a hyperplane ŷ = a + βTx to the data (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n, then the fit can be assessed using the mean squared error (MSE). The MSE for given estimated parameter values a and β on the training set (xi, yi) 1 ≤ i ≤ n is defined as: MSE = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − y ^ i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β T x i ) 2 = 1 n ∑ i = 1 n ( y i − a − β 1 x i 1 − ⋯ − β p x i p ) 2 {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{\text{MSE}}&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-{\hat {y}}_{i})^{2}={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-{\boldsymbol {\beta }}^{T}\mathbf {x} _{i})^{2}\\&={\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(y_{i}-a-\beta _{1}x_{i1}-\dots -\beta _{p}x_{ip})^{2}\end{aligned}}} If the model is correctly specified, it can be shown under mild assumptions that the expected value of the MSE for the training set is (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) < 1 times the expected value of the MSE for the validation set (the expected value is taken over the distribution of training sets). Thus, a fitted model and computed MSE on the training set will result in an optimistically biased assessment of how well the model will fit an independent data set. This biased estimate is called the in-sample estimate of the fit, whereas the cross-validation estimate is an out-of-sample estimate. Since in linear regression it is possible to directly compute the factor (n − p − 1)/(n + p + 1) by which the training MSE underestimates the validation MSE under the assumption that the model specification is valid, cross-validation can be used for checking whether the model has been overfitted, in which case the MSE in the validation set will substantially exceed its anticipated value. (Cross-validation in the context of linear regression is also useful in that it can be used to select an optimally regularized cost function.) === General case === In most other regression procedures (e.g. logistic regression), there is no simple formula to compute the expected out-of-sample fit. Cross-validation is, thus, a generally applicable way to predict the performance of a model on unavailable data using numerical computation in place of theoretical analysis. == Types == Two types of cross-validation can be distinguished: exhaustive and non-exhaustive cross-validation. === Exhaustive cross-validation === Exhaustive cross-validation methods are cross-validation methods which learn and test on all possible ways to divide the original sample into a training and a validation set. ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation ==== Leave-p-out cross-validation (LpO CV) involves using p observations as the validation set and the remaining observations as the training set. This is repeated on all ways to cut the original sample on a validation set of p observations and a training set. LpO cross-validation require training and validating the model C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} times, where n is the number of observations in the original sample, and where C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} is the binomial coefficient. For p > 1 and for even moderately large n, LpO CV can become computationally infeasible. For example, with n = 100 and p = 30, C 30 100 ≈ 3 × 10 25 . {\displaystyle C_{30}^{100}\approx 3\times 10^{25}.} A variant of LpO cross-validation with p=2 known as leave-pair-out cross-validation has been recommended as a nearly unbiased method for estimating the area under ROC curve of binary classifiers. ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation ==== Leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) is a particular case of leave-p-out cross-validation with p = 1. The process looks similar to jackknife; however, with cross-validation one computes a statistic on the left-out sample(s), while with jackknifing one computes a statistic from the kept samples only. LOO cross-validation requires less computation time than LpO cross-validation because there are only C 1 n = n {\displaystyle C_{1}^{n}=n} passes rather than C p n {\displaystyle C_{p}^{n}} . However, n {\displaystyle n} passes may still require quite a large computation time, in which case other approaches such as k-fold cross validation may be more appropriate. Pseudo-code algorithm: Input: x, {vector of length N with x-values of incoming points} y, {vector of length N with y-values of the expected result} interpolate( x_in, y_in, x_out ), { returns the estimation for point x_out after the model is trained with x_in-y_in pairs} Output: err, {estimate for the prediction error} Steps: err ← 0 for i ← 1, ..., N do // define the cross-validation subsets x_in ← (x[1], ..., x[i − 1], x[i + 1], ..., x[N]) y_in ← (y[1], ..., y[i − 1], y[i + 1], ..., y[N]) x_out ← x[i] y_out ← interpolate(x_in, y_in, x_out) err ← err + (y[i] − y_out)^2 end for err ← err/N === Non-exhaustive cross-validation === Non-exhaustive cross validation methods do not compute all ways of splitting the original sample. These methods are approximations of leave-p-out cross-validation. ==== k-fold cross-validation ==== In k-fold cross-validation, the original sample is randomly partitioned into k equal sized subsamples, often referred to as "folds". Of the k subsamples, a single subsample is retained as the validation data for testing the model, and the remaining k − 1 subsamples are used as training data. The cross-validation process is then repeated k times, with each of the k subsamples used exactly once as the validation data. The k results can then be averaged to produce a single estimation. The advantage of this method over repeated random sub-sampling (see below) is that all observations are used for both training and validation, and each observation is used for validation exactly once. 10-fold cross-validation is commonly used, but in general k remains an unfixed parameter. For example, setting k = 2 results in 2-fold cross-validation. In 2-fold cross-validation, the dataset is randomly shuffled into two sets d0 and d1, so that both sets are equal size (this is usually implemented by shuffling the data array and then splitting it in two). We then train on d0 and validate on d1, followed by training on d1 and validating on d0. When k = n (the number of observations), k-fold cross-validation is equivalent to leave-one-out cr
Read more →
DoorDash

DoorDash, Inc. is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery. It trades under the symbol DASH. With a 56% market share, DoorDash is the largest food delivery platform in the United States. It also has a 60% market share in the convenience delivery category. As of December 31, 2020, the platform was used by 450,000 merchants, 20 million consumers, and had over one million delivery couriers. Founded by Tony Xu, Andy Fang, Stanley Tang and Evan Moore, DoorDash made its debut on the Fortune 500 list in 2024, ranking No. 443. DoorDash has been sued for or held legally liable for withholding tips, reducing tip transparency, antitrust price manipulation, listing restaurants without permission, misclassifying workers, withholding sick time, and illegally selling personal data. As of April 2026, DoorDash operates in the United States (including Puerto Rico), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Through its subsidiaries Deliveroo and Wolt, the company also operates across Europe, as well as in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. == History == In January 2013, Stanford University students Tony Xu, Stanley Tang, Andy Fang and Evan Moore launched PaloAltoDelivery.com in Palo Alto, California. In the summer of 2013, it received US$120,000 in seed money from Y Combinator in exchange for a 7% stake. It incorporated as DoorDash in June 2013. DoorDash's first partnership with a fast food burger restaurant chain was in April 2016, when it partnered with CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, for food delivery. In December 2017, DoorDash announced its partnership with Wendy's for delivery from its restaurants. In December 2018, DoorDash overtook Uber Eats to hold the second position in total US food delivery sales, behind GrubHub. By March 2019, it had exceeded GrubHub in total sales, at 27.6% of the on-demand delivery market. By early 2019, DoorDash was the largest food delivery provider in the U.S., as measured by consumer spending. In October 2019, DoorDash opened its first ghost kitchen, DoorDash Kitchen, in Redwood City, California, with four restaurants operating at the location. By June 2020, DoorDash had raised more than $2.5 billion over several financing rounds from investors including Y Combinator, Charles River Ventures, SV Angel, Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, SoftBank Group, GIC, and Kleiner Perkins. DoorDash announced a partnership with KFC in September 2020, followed by Taco Bell in October 2020. In November 2020, DoorDash announced the opening of its first physical restaurant location, partnering up with Bay Area restaurant Burma Bites to offer delivery and pick-up orders. In December 2020, it became a public company via an initial public offering, raising $3.37 billion. In November 2021, DoorDash acquired Finland's Wolt for €7bn. In August 2022, DoorDash announced it would end its partnership with Walmart in September, ending the companies' cooperation agreement from 2018. In November 2022, DoorDash announced plans to lay off 1,250 corporate employees, or about six percent of its workforce, to rein in expenses. In June 2023, DoorDash announced it would give its drivers the option of earning an hourly minimum wage instead of being paid per delivery. However, drivers are only paid hourly when on an active delivery. In September 2023, the company transferred its stock listing from the New York Stock Exchange to the Nasdaq. On December 18, 2023, DoorDash was added to the Nasdaq-100 index. In March 2025, DoorDash announced a partnership with Klarna, a Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) service, letting customers schedule small payments over a set period of time. DoorDash received widespread criticism from this decision, including internet mockery, given concerns about the increase of household debt in America. In 2025, DoorDash acquired the UK-based delivery service Deliveroo for $3.88 billion. The combined company operates in 40 countries and serves 50 million users monthly. In September 2025, DoorDash and Ace Hardware (the largest hardware cooperative) announced their partnership to offer delivery for home use products from over 4,000 Ace locations. == Lawsuits against DoorDash == === 2017 class-action lawsuit for misclassifying workers === In 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against DoorDash for allegedly misclassifying delivery drivers in California and Massachusetts as independent contractors. In 2022, a tentative settlement was reached in which DoorDash would pay $100 million total, with $61 million going to over 900,000 drivers, paying out just over $130 per driver, and $28 million for the lawyers. Gizmodo criticized the settlement, noting that the $413 million that DoorDash CEO Tony Xu received the previous year was one of the largest CEO compensation packages of all time. === 2019 data breach lawsuit === On May 4, 2019, DoorDash confirmed 4.9 million customers, delivery workers and merchants had sensitive information stolen via a data breach. Those who joined the platform after April 5, 2018, were unaffected by the breach. A class-action lawsuit for the breach was filed against DoorDash in October 2019. === Withholding of tips and subsequent class-action lawsuits === In July 2019, the company's tipping policy was criticized by The New York Times, and later The Verge and Vox and Gothamist. Drivers receive a guaranteed minimum per order that is paid by DoorDash by default. When a customer added a tip, instead of going directly to the driver, it first went to the company to cover the guaranteed minimum. Drivers then only directly received the part of the tip that exceeded the guaranteed minimum per order. In January 2020, it was reported that DoorDash had lied about skimming tips from its drivers, causing them to earn an average of $1.45 an hour after expenses, and that after the company had allegedly overhauled its tipping system, DoorDash was still manipulating per-delivery payouts at the expense of drivers. A DoorDash customer filed a class action lawsuit against the company for its "materially false and misleading" tipping policy. The case was referred to arbitration in August 2020. Under pressure, the company revised its policy. The company settled a lawsuit with District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine for $2.5 million, with funds going to deliverers, the government, and to charity. ==== 2021 driver strike for tip transparency ==== In July 2021, DoorDash drivers went on strike to protest lack of tip transparency and to ask for higher pay. At the time of the strike, and, as of June 2022, DoorDash did not allow drivers to see the full tip amounts prior to accepting a delivery in the app. If customers tip over a set amount for the order total, Doordash hides a portion of the tip until the delivery is complete. The strike occurred after DoorDash rewrote its code to cut off access to Para, a third-party app that drivers had been using to see the full tip amounts. ==== 2025 class-action lawsuit settlement ==== In 2025, DoorDash agreed to pay around $17 million for "misleading both consumers and delivery workers" with tips being docked from drivers' pay instead of directly going to drivers. === 2020 antitrust litigation === In April 2020, in the case of Davitashvili v. GrubHub Inc. DoorDash, Grubhub, Postmates, and Uber Eats were accused of monopolistic power by only listing restaurants on its apps if the restaurant owners signed contracts which include clauses that require prices be the same for dine-in customers as for customers receiving delivery. The plaintiffs stated that this arrangement increases the cost for dine-in customers, as they are required to subsidize the cost of delivery; and that the apps charge "exorbitant" fees, which range from 13% to 40% of revenue, while the average restaurant's profit ranges from 3% to 9% of revenue. The lawsuit seeks treble damages, including for overcharges, since April 14, 2016, for dine-in and delivery customers in the United States at restaurants using the defendants’ delivery apps. Although several preliminary documents in the case have now been filed, a trial date has not yet been set. === Litigation for illegal unauthorized restaurant listing === In May 2021, DoorDash was criticized for unauthorized listings of restaurants who had not given permission to appear on the app. The company was sued by Lona's Lil Eats in St. Louis, with the lawsuit claiming that DoorDash had listed them without permission, then prevented any orders to the restaurant from going through and redirecting customers to other restaurants instead, because Lona's was "too far away," when in reality it had not paid DoorDash a fee for listing. This aspect of DoorDash's business practice is illegal in California. === 2021 lawsuit by the city of Chicago === In August 2021, the city of Chicago sued DoorDash and GrubHub. According to Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot, the companies broke the law by using "unfair and deceptive t
Read more →
Aporia (company)

Aporia is a machine learning observability platform based in Tel Aviv, Israel. The company has a US office located in San Jose, California. Aporia has developed software for monitoring and controlling undetected defects and failures used by other companies to detect and report anomalies, and warn in the early stages of faults. == History == Aporia was founded in 2019 by Liran Hason and Alon Gubkin. In April 2021, the company raised a $5 million seed round for its monitoring platform for ML models. In February 2022, the company closed a Series A round of $25 million for its ML observability platform. Aporia was named by Forbes as the Next Billion-Dollar Company in June 2022. In November, the company partnered with ClearML, an MLOPs platform, to improve ML pipeline optimization. In January 2023, Aporia launched Direct Data Connectors, a novel technology allowing organizations to monitor their ML models in minutes (previously the process of integrating ML monitoring into a customer’s cloud environment took weeks or more.) DDC (Direct Data Connectors) enables users to connect Aporia to their preferred data source and monitor all of their data at once, without data sampling or data duplication (which is a huge security risk for major organizations. In April 2023, Aporia announced the company partnered with Amazon Web Services (AWS) to provide more reliable ML observability to AWS consumers by deploying Aporia's architecture to their AWS environment, this will allow customers to monitor their models in production regardless of platform.
Read more →
Resisting AI

Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence is a book on artificial intelligence (AI) by Dan McQuillan, published in 2022 by Bristol University Press. == Content == Resisting AI takes the form of an extended essay, which contrasts optimistic visions about AI's potential by arguing that AI may best be seen as a continuation and reinforcement of bureaucratic forms of discrimination and violence, ultimately fostering authoritarian outcomes. For McQuillan, AI's promise of objective calculability is antithetical to an egalitarian and just society. McQuillan uses the expression "AI violence" to describe how – based on opaque algorithms – various actors can discriminate against categories of people in accessing jobs, loans, medical care, and other benefits. The book suggests that AI has a political resonance with soft eugenic approaches to the valuation of life by modern welfare states, and that AI exhibits eugenic features in its underlying logic, as well as in its technical operations. The parallel is with historical eugenicists achieving saving to the state by sterilizing defectives so the state would not have to care for their offspring. The analysis of McQuillan goes beyond the known critique of AI systems fostering precarious labour markets, addressing "necropolitics", the politics of who is entitled to live, and who to die. Although McQuillan offers a brief history of machine learning at the beginning of the book – with its need for "hidden and undercompensated labour", he is concerned more with the social impacts of AI rather than with its technical aspects. McQuillan sees AI as the continuation of existing bureaucratic systems that already marginalize vulnerable groups – aggravated by the fact that AI systems trained on existing data are likely to reinforce existing discriminations, e.g. in attempting to optimize welfare distribution based on existing data patterns, ultimately creating a system of "self-reinforcing social profiling". In elaborating on the continuation between existing bureaucratic violence and AI, McQuillan connects to Hannah Arendt's concept of the thoughtless bureaucrat in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, which now becomes the algorithm that, lacking intent, cannot be accountable, and is thus endowed with an "algorithmic thoughtlessness". McQuillan defends the "fascist" in the title of the work by arguing that while not all AI is fascist, this emerging technology of control may end up being deployed by fascist or authoritarian regimes. For McQuillan, AI can support the diffusion of states of exception, as a technology impossible to properly regulate and a mechanism for multiplying exceptions more widely. An example of a scenario where AI systems of surveillance could bring discrimination to a new high is the initiative to create LGBT-free zones in Poland. Skeptical of ethical regulations to control the technology, McQuillan suggests people's councils and workers' councils, and other forms of citizens' agency to resist AI. A chapter titled "Post-Machine Learning" makes an appeal for resistance via currents of thought from feminist science (standpoint theory), post-normal science (extended peer communities), and new materialism; McQuillan encourages the reader to question the meaning of "objectivity" and calls for the necessity of alternative ways of knowing. Among the virtuous examples of resistance – possibly to be adopted by the AI workers themselves – McQuillan notes the Lucas Plan of the workers of Lucas Aerospace Corporation, in which a workforce declared redundant took control, reorienting the enterprise toward useful products. McQuillan advocates for what he calls decomputing, an opposition to the sweeping application and expansion of artificial intelligence. Similar to degrowth, the approach criticizes AI as an outgrowth of the systemic issues within capitalist systems. McQuillan argues that a different future is possible, in which distance between people is reduced rather than increased through AI intermediaries. The work of McQuillan warns against "watered-down forms of engagement" with AI, such as citizen juries, which superficially look like democratic deliberation but may actually obscure important decisions about AI that are outside the purview of the engagement situation (McQuillan 2022, 128). In an interview about the book, McQuillan describes himself as an "AI abolitionist". == Reception == The book has been praised for how it "masterfully disassembles AI as an epistemological, social, and political paradigm". On the critical side, a review in the academic journal Justice, Power and Resistance took exception to the "nightmarish visions of Big Brother" offered by McQuillan, and argued that while many elements of AI may pose concern, a critique should not be based on a caricature of what AI is, concluding that McQuillan's work is "less of a theory and more of a Manifesto". Another review notes "a disconnect between the technical aspects of AI and the socio-political analysis McQuillan provides." Although the book was published before the ChatGPT and large language model debate heated up, the book has not lost relevance to the AI discussion. It is noted for suggesting a link between beliefs in artificial intelligence and beliefs in a racialised and gendered visions of intelligence overall, whereby a certain type of rational, measurable intelligence is privileged, leading to "historical notions of hierarchies of being". The blog Reboot praised McQuillan for offering a theory of harm of AI (why AI could end up hurting people and society) that does not just encourage tackling in isolation specific predicted problems with AI-centric systems: bias, non-inclusiveness, exploitativeness, environmental destructiveness, opacity, and non-contestability. For educational policies could also look at AI following the reading of McQuillan: In his book Resisting AI, Dan McQuillan argues that "When we're thinking about the actuality of AI, we can't separate the calculations in the code from the social context of its application" .... McQuillan's particular concern is how many contemporary applications of AI are amplifying existing inequalities and injustices as well as deepening social divisions and instabilities. His book makes a powerful case for anticipating these effects and actively resisting them for the good of societies. Videos and podcasts with an interest in AI and emerging technology have discussed the book.
Read more →