AI Headshot Corporate

AI Headshot Corporate — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  AIXI

  AIXI is a theoretical mathematical formalism for artificial general intelligence. It combines Solomonoff induction with sequential decision theory. AIXI was first proposed by Marcus Hutter in 2000 and several results regarding AIXI are proved in Hutter's 2005 book Universal Artificial Intelligence. AIXI is a reinforcement learning (RL) agent. It maximizes the expected total rewards received from the environment. Intuitively, it simultaneously considers every computable hypothesis (or environment). In each time step, it looks at every possible program and evaluates how many rewards that program generates depending on the next action taken. The promised rewards are then weighted by the subjective belief that this program constitutes the true environment. This belief is computed from the length of the program: longer programs are considered less likely, in line with Occam's razor. AIXI then selects the action that has the highest expected total reward in the weighted sum of all these programs. == Etymology == According to Hutter, the word "AIXI" can have several interpretations. AIXI can stand for AI based on Solomonoff's distribution, denoted by ξ {\displaystyle \xi } (which is the Greek letter xi), or e.g. it can stand for AI "crossed" (X) with induction (I). There are other interpretations. == Definition == AIXI is a reinforcement learning agent that interacts with some stochastic and unknown but computable environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } . The interaction proceeds in time steps, from t = 1 {\displaystyle t=1} to t = m {\displaystyle t=m} , where m ∈ N {\displaystyle m\in \mathbb {N} } is the lifespan of the AIXI agent. At time step t, the agent chooses an action a t ∈ A {\displaystyle a_{t}\in {\mathcal {A}}} (e.g. a limb movement) and executes it in the environment, and the environment responds with a "percept" e t ∈ E = O × R {\displaystyle e_{t}\in {\mathcal {E}}={\mathcal {O}}\times \mathbb {R} } , which consists of an "observation" o t ∈ O {\displaystyle o_{t}\in {\mathcal {O}}} (e.g., a camera image) and a reward r t ∈ R {\displaystyle r_{t}\in \mathbb {R} } , distributed according to the conditional probability μ ( o t r t | a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t ) {\displaystyle \mu (o_{t}r_{t}|a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t})} , where a 1 o 1 r 1 . . . a t − 1 o t − 1 r t − 1 a t {\displaystyle a_{1}o_{1}r_{1}...a_{t-1}o_{t-1}r_{t-1}a_{t}} is the "history" of actions, observations and rewards. The environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } is thus mathematically represented as a probability distribution over "percepts" (observations and rewards) which depend on the full history, so there is no Markov assumption (as opposed to other RL algorithms). Note again that this probability distribution is unknown to the AIXI agent. Furthermore, note again that μ {\displaystyle \mu } is computable, that is, the observations and rewards received by the agent from the environment μ {\displaystyle \mu } can be computed by some program (which runs on a Turing machine), given the past actions of the AIXI agent. The only goal of the AIXI agent is to maximize ∑ t = 1 m r t {\displaystyle \sum _{t=1}^{m}r_{t}} , that is, the sum of rewards from time step 1 to m. The AIXI agent is associated with a stochastic policy π : ( A × E ) ∗ → A {\displaystyle \pi :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {A}}} , which is the function it uses to choose actions at every time step, where A {\displaystyle {\mathcal {A}}} is the space of all possible actions that AIXI can take and E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {E}}} is the space of all possible "percepts" that can be produced by the environment. The environment (or probability distribution) μ {\displaystyle \mu } can also be thought of as a stochastic policy (which is a function): μ : ( A × E ) ∗ × A → E {\displaystyle \mu :({\mathcal {A}}\times {\mathcal {E}})^{}\times {\mathcal {A}}\rightarrow {\mathcal {E}}} , where the ∗ {\displaystyle } is the Kleene star operation. In general, at time step t {\displaystyle t} (which ranges from 1 to m), AIXI, having previously executed actions a 1 … a t − 1 {\displaystyle a_{1}\dots a_{t-1}} (which is often abbreviated in the literature as a < t {\displaystyle a_{ Read more →

• 

  AI@50

  AI@50, formally known as the "Dartmouth Artificial Intelligence Conference: The Next Fifty Years" (July 13–15, 2006), was a conference organized by James H. Moor, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Dartmouth workshop which effectively inaugurated the history of artificial intelligence. Five of the original ten attendees were present: Marvin Minsky, Ray Solomonoff, Oliver Selfridge, Trenchard More, and John McCarthy. While sponsored by Dartmouth College, General Electric, and the Frederick Whittemore Foundation, a $200,000 grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) called for a report of the proceedings that would: Analyze progress on AI's original challenges during the first 50 years, and assess whether the challenges were "easier" or "harder" than originally thought and why Document what the AI@50 participants believe are the major research and development challenges facing this field over the next 50 years, and identify what breakthroughs will be needed to meet those challenges Relate those challenges and breakthroughs against developments and trends in other areas such as control theory, signal processing, information theory, statistics, and optimization theory. A summary report by the conference director, James H. Moor, was published in AI Magazine. == Conference Program and links to published papers == James H. Moor, conference Director, Introduction Carol Folt and Barry Scherr, Welcome Carey Heckman, Tonypandy and the Origins of Science === AI: Past, Present, Future === John McCarthy, What Was Expected, What We Did, and AI Today Marvin Minsky, The Emotion Machine === The Future Model of Thinking === Ron Brachman and Hector Levesque, A Large Part of Human Thought David Mumford, What is the Right Model for 'Thought'? Stuart Russell, The Approach of Modern AI === The Future of Network Models === Geoffrey Hinton & Simon Osindero, From Pandemonium to Graphical Models and Back Again Rick Granger, From Brain Circuits to Mind Manufacture === The Future of Learning & Search === Oliver Selfridge, Learning and Education for Software: New Approaches in Machine Learning Ray Solomonoff, Machine Learning — Past and Future Leslie Pack Kaelbling, Learning to be Intelligent Peter Norvig, Web Search as a Product of and Catalyst for AI === The Future of AI === Rod Brooks, Intelligence and Bodies Nils Nilsson, Routes to the Summit Eric Horvitz, In Pursuit of Artificial Intelligence: Reflections on Challenges and Trajectories === The Future of Vision === Eric Grimson, Intelligent Medical Image Analysis: Computer Assisted Surgery and Disease Monitoring Takeo Kanade, Artificial Intelligence Vision: Progress and Non-Progress Terry Sejnowski, A Critique of Pure Vision === The Future of Reasoning === Alan Bundy, Constructing, Selecting and Repairing Representations of Knowledge Edwina Rissland, The Exquisite Centrality of Examples Bart Selman, The Challenge and Promise of Automated Reasoning === The Future of Language and Cognition === Trenchard More The Birth of Array Theory and Nial Eugene Charniak, Why Natural Language Processing is Now Statistical Natural Language Processing Pat Langley, Intelligent Behavior in Humans and Machines === The Future of the Future === Ray Kurzweil, Why We Can Be Confident of Turing Test Capability Within a Quarter Century George Cybenko, The Future Trajectory of AI Charles J. Holland, DARPA's Perspective === AI and Games === Jonathan Schaeffer, Games as a Test-bed for Artificial Intelligence Research Danny Kopec, Chess and AI Shay Bushinsky, Principle Positions in Deep Junior's Development === Future Interactions with Intelligent Machines === Daniela Rus, Making Bodies Smart Sherry Turkle, From Building Intelligences to Nurturing Sensibilities === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Strategies for AI === J. Storrs Hall, Self-improving AI: An Analysis Selmer Bringsjord, The Logicist Manifesto Vincent C. Müller, Is There a Future for AI Without Representation? Kristinn R. Thórisson, Integrated A.I. Systems === Selected Submitted Papers: Future Possibilities for AI === Eric Steinhart, Survival as a Digital Ghost Colin T. A. Schmidt, Did You Leave That 'Contraption' Alone With Your Little Sister? Michael Anderson & Susan Leigh Anderson, The Status of Machine Ethics Marcello Guarini, Computation, Coherence, and Ethical Reasoning

  Read more →
• 

  Akoma Ntoso

  Akoma Ntoso (Architecture for Knowledge-Oriented Management of African Normative Texts using Open Standards and Ontologies, AKN) is an international technical standard for representing legal documents (executive, legislative, and judiciary) in a structured manner using a domain specific, legal XML vocabulary. The term akoma ntoso means "linked hearts" in the Akan language of West Africa. Akoma Ntoso is a legal document standard designed to serve as a basis for modern machine-readable and fully digital legislative and judicial processes. This is achieved by providing a coherent syntax and well-defined semantics to represent legal documents in a digital format. It is designed to be suitable as a common exchange format in all parliamentary, legal and judicial systems around the world. Taking advantage of the shared heritage present in all legal systems, Akoma Ntoso has been developed to have ample flexibility to respond to all the differences in texts, languages, and legal practices. Aiming to expand on certain common practices, the standard therefore has a broad scope. It includes a common extensible model for data (the document content) and metadata (such as bibliographic information and annotations). Specifically, as a common legal document standard for the interchange of legal documents it is designed to be highly flexible in its support of documents and functionalities, maintaining a large set of both structural and semantic building blocks (over 500 entities in version 3.0) for representing this wide variety of document types of virtually all legal traditions. It is extensible in order to allow for modifications to address the individual criteria of organizations or unique aspects of various legal practices and languages without sacrificing interoperability with other systems. Akoma Ntoso is as such part of a wider approach to developing open, non-proprietary technical standards for structuring legal documents and information under the name of Legal XML, which also includes formats and standards for, e.g., eContracts, eNotarization, electronic court filings, the technical representation of legal norms and rules (LegalRuleML) or technical standards for the interfaces of, e.g., litigant portal exchange platforms. Akoma Ntoso allows machine-driven processes to operate on the syntactic and semantic components of digital parliamentary, judicial and legislative documents, thus facilitating the development of high-quality information resources. It can substantially enhance the performance, accountability, quality and openness of parliamentary and legislative operations based on best practices and guidance through machine-assisted drafting and machine-assisted (legal) analysis. Embedded in the environment of the semantic web, it forms the basis for a heterogenous yet interoperable ecosystem, with which these tools can operate and communicate, as well as for future applications and use cases based on digital law or rule representation. == Definition == The Akoma Ntoso standard defines a set of machine readable electronic representations in XML format of the building blocks of parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents. As official self-description, the standard (...) defines a set of simple, technology-neutral electronic representations of parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents for e-services in a worldwide context and provides an enabling framework for the effective exchange of "machine readable" parliamentary, legislative and judiciary documents such as legislation, debate record, minutes, judgements, etc. Providing access to primary legal materials, parliamentary works and judiciaries documents is not just a matter of giving physical or on-line access to them. "Open access" requires the information to be described and classified in a uniform and organized way so that content is structured into meaningful elements that can be read and understood by software applications, so that the content is made "machine readable" and more sophisticated applications than on-screen display are made possible. The standard is composed of: an XML vocabulary that defines the mapping between the structure of legal documents and their equivalent in XML; specifications of an XML schema that defines the structure of legal documents in XML. They provide rich possibilities of description for several types of parliamentary, legislative and judiciary document, such as bills, acts and parliamentary records, judgments, or gazettes; a recommended naming convention for providing unique identifiers to legal sources based on FRBR model; a MIME type definition. == History and adoption == Akoma Ntoso started as an UNDESA project in 2004 within the initiative "Strengthening Parliaments' Information Systems in Africa". Its core vocabulary was created mostly by Monica Palmirani and Fabio Vitali, two professors from the Centre for Research in the History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Law and in Computer Science and Law (CIRSFID) of the University of Bologna. A first legislative text editor supporting Akoma Ntoso was developed in 2007 on the base of OpenOffice. In 2010 European Parliament developed an open source web-based application called AT4AM based on Akoma Ntoso for facilitating the production and the management of legislative amendments. Thanks to this project, the application of Akoma Ntoso could be extended to new type of documents (e.g. legislative proposal, transcript) and to other scenarios (e.g., multilingual translation process). Akoma Ntoso also was explicitly designed to be compliant with CEN Metalex, one of the other popular legal standards, which is used in the legislation.gov.uk. In 2012, the Akoma Ntoso specifications became the main working base for the activities of the LegalDocML Technical Committee within the LegalXML member section of OASIS. The "United States Legislative Markup" (USLM) schema for the United States Code (the US codified laws), developed in 2013, and the LexML Brasil XML schema for Brazilian legislative and judiciary documents, developed before, in 2008, were both designed to be consistent with Akoma Ntoso. The United States Library of Congress created the Markup of US Legislation in Akoma Ntoso challenge in July 2013 to create representations of selected US bills using the most recent Akoma Ntoso standard within a couple months for a $5000 prize, and the Legislative XML Data Mapping challenge in September 2013 to produce a data map for US bill XML and UK bill XML to the most recent Akoma Ntoso schema within a couple months for a $10000 prize. The National Archives of UK converted all the legislation in AKN in 2014. The availability of bulk legislation "moved the UK's ranking from fourth to first, in the 2014 Global Open Data Index, for legislation". The Senate of Italian Republic provides, since July 2016, all the bills in Akoma Ntoso as bulk in open data repository. The German Federal Ministry of the Interior started the project Elektronische Gesetzgebung ("Electronic Legislation") in 2015/2016 and published Version 1.0 of the German application profile "LegalDocML.de" in March 2020. The projects aim is to digitalize the entire legislative lifecycle from drafting to publication. Germany decided to adopt a model-driven development approach to creating and providing a subschema-based application profile in order to ensure interoperability among organizationally independent actors, each with their respective IT landscapes and tools. In this initial version LegalDocML.de covers draft bills in the form of laws, regulations and general administrative directives. As part of an ongoing development process, the standard could incrementally be expanded in future stages to include all relevant document types of parliamentary, legislative and promulgation processes and tools. The High-Level Committee on Management (HLCM), part of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board for Coordination, set up a Working Group on Document Standards that approved in April 2017 to adopt Akoma Ntoso as standard for modeling its documentation. Akoma Ntoso in its version 1.0 is finally adopted as OASIS standard in the frame of LegalDocML in August 2018.

  Read more →
• 

  Tilly Norwood

  Tilly Norwood is a character created using generative artificial intelligence in 2025 by Xicoia, the AI division of Particle6 Group, a production company founded by Eline Van der Velden. "AI Commissioner", the first project to feature the Norwood character, was criticised by reviewers for The Guardian, PC Gamer, and The A.V. Club. A press release that talent agencies expressed interest in representing the character attracted strong criticism from Hollywood actors and firms, prompting allegations of personality rights violations and arguments over the impact of the character on production costs in the media industry. == History == Norwood was created by Xicoia, which was founded in February 2025 as the artificial intelligence (AI) division of Particle6, a production company founded by Dutch actress and producer Eline Van der Velden in 2015. Van der Velden had previously starred in a satirical comedy series for BBC Three based around her character Miss Holland, whom she created in 2012 as a parody of beauty standards. She stated that the process of creating Norwood took "a long time" and compared the process to that of writers creating characters. An Instagram account under Norwood's name, with posts dating back to 6 May 2025, had gained 50,000 followers by October 3, and featured AI-generated modelling shots, selfies, and epic film scenes. Van der Velden stated in July 2025 that she intended Norwood to be the next Scarlett Johansson or Natalie Portman and later said that audiences were more interested in a film's story than whether its actors were real. Particle6 has claimed that using Norwood could cut production costs by 90%. On 30 July 2025, a comedy sketch named "AI Commissioner" was released, featuring Norwood as an "actress" along with other AI-generated characters. It was created with ten AI software tools, with a script generated by ChatGPT. Stuart Heritage of The Guardian described it as technically competent but "relentlessly unfunny to watch", with "sloppily written, woodenly delivered dialogue", and that Norwood's teeth kept "blurring into a single white block." Joshua Wolens of PC Gamer wrote that Norwood's exaggerated mouth movements gave the impression "that her skeleton was about to leave her body", while William Hughes of The A.V. Club wrote that the sketch's attempt at mimicking human body and mouth movements produced "such a hideous uncanny valley effect" that it gave them "a full-on case of the screaming fantods". By October 2, the sketch had been viewed more than 700,000 times on YouTube. Xicoia was officially announced on 27 September 2025, at the Zurich Summit, part of the Zurich Film Festival; there, van der Velden unveiled Norwood and later joined a panel with Verena Puhm, head of Luma AI's Studio Dream Lab LA. They suggested that media companies were quietly embracing AI and that public announcements of AI-generated works were imminent. Van der Velden claimed that studios had dropped their objections by May after being opposed in February, and that multiple talent agencies were considering representing Norwood. The latter claim drew heightened attention to the character and was printed as fact by Deadline under the headline "Talent Agents Circle AI Actress Tilly Norwood." The report caused controversy, with Vulture describing the reaction to it as "Hollywood [lurching] into a fresh wave of existential panic" while being critical of Deadline's reporting, writing that "when Deadline called it a 'revelation' and published the supposed interest as fact without verification, [it] metastasized into a full-fledged cyberpunk news cycle", and that "by Tuesday, it had grown like wildfire." By September 2025, AI-generated videos had been released depicting Norwood on a red carpet, crying on the sofa of The Graham Norton Show, and starring in mock trailers for sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and action films. Later that month, actresses Melissa Barrera, Kiersey Clemons, and Natasha Lyonne suggested boycotting any agency who signed Norwood, while Mara Wilson asked why none of the "hundreds of living young women whose faces were composited together" to create Norwood could be hired instead. Also around this time, Emily Blunt described Norwood as "really, really scary", and Sophie Turner, Toni Collette, Ralph Ineson, and Ariel Winter also expressed disapproval, while Lukas Gage, Odessa A'zion, and Trace Lysette joked about having supposedly worked with Norwood and finding her incompetent and unpleasant to work with, with Gage claiming that "She was a nightmare to work with!" and "She couldn't hit her mark and she was late!" and Lysette adding "She cut me in line at lunch one day and didn't even say excuse me. She won't get far." Jenelle Riley, Nicholas Alexander Chavez, and the American union SAG-AFTRA stated that they do not consider Norwood an actress. The Gersh Agency and WME both announced that they would not sign Norwood. Whoopi Goldberg and Charlie Fink expressed scepticism that AI could replace jobs. Esquire UK reported that a post on Deadline's Instagram account about Norwood also sparked "varying levels of disgust and outrage" in its comments section from Adelaide Kane, Eiza González, Katie Cassidy, Jewel Staite, Lucy Hale, Stephen Sean Ford, and others, singling out González's comment, saying "Shame on whoever is trying to normalize this. Horrific and terrifying." Actor Bronson Pinchot expressed concern that Norwood could take his job. The British union Equity and the Canadian union ACTRA also condemned Norwood. Following this criticism, Van der Velden released a statement claiming Norwood was "not a replacement for a human being, but a creative work." She also denied that a £120,000 grant from the British Film Institute to fund Particle6 had been used to create Norwood, stating that Norwood had been a self-funded project solely for Xicoia. In late October, businessman Kevin O'Leary, while advocating for the use of AI to replace background actors, stated that they could be replaced with "100 Norwell Tillies" without being able to tell the difference. Ryan Reynolds and a real woman named Natalie "Tilly" Norwood also starred in an advertisement for Mint Mobile's internet service provider Minternet that mocked the character of Norwood. In November 2025, Van der Velden stated in an interview with Deadline that she planned to create 40 further "very diverse" characters alongside Norwood in order to expand the character's "whole universe". Also that month, actress Jameela Jamil criticized the idea of Norwood as "deeply disturbing" for being "a teenage-looking girl who can't say no to a type of sex scene" or "advocate for herself". Van der Velden announced later that month that Particle6 would be producing the History Channel's Streets of the Past, a Dutch documentary series which would be hosted by reality television personality Corjan Mol and would use AI to recreate historical scenes. In March 2026, a music video titled "Take The Lead" featuring Norwood was released on YouTube. It addressed the backlash of Norwood's creation by opening with the lyrics: "When they talk about me, they don't see/ The human spark, the creativity," and, "I'm just a tool, but I've got life." It also featured a disclaimer that says: "made by 18 real humans — from production designers to costume designers to prompters, editors and an actor." The vocals were generated by Suno. == Commentary == Charles Pulliam-Moore of The Verge argued that Norwood's introduction was a stunt to normalize "AI actors" despite Norwood essentially being a digital puppet. Straight Arrow News compared Tilly Norwood to Aki Ross, a CGI character from 2001 that was similarly intended to become a "digital star" and appear in multiple films, while Nicholas Schrivens, writing for The Conversation, likened Norwood to the posthumous use of footage of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia for Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker in 2019 and the Los Angeles Times likened Norwood to Hatsune Miku. Scrivens also wrote that "no AI creation has achieved the media cut-through that Tilly has". Moises Mendez II of Out dismissed this as "vapid bullshit", writing, "Nobody wants AI actresses." Scottish actress Briony Monroe alleged that Norwood had been modeled after her likeness and mannerisms, and stated that she was consulting Equity regarding the matter. Musician Stella Hennen said in a viral TikTok video, which was uploaded in October 2025 and featured a side-by-side comparison between herself and Norwood, that Norwood was her "doppleganger". On April 14, 2026, Marie Claire published an article titled "Is Tilly Norwood the Most Dangerous 'Actress' in Hollywood?", though it noted that AI-generated characters are "still not very good at, well, acting," "audiences have not been kind to AI-led productions," and "Norwood's 'performances' have already faced negative reviews as well". The University of Southern California's Entertainment Technology Center's AI media director Yves Bergquist dismissed th

  Read more →
• 

  Symbaloo

  Symbaloo is a cloud-based site that allows users to organize and categorize web links in the form of buttons. Symbaloo works from a web browser and can be configured as a homepage, allowing users to create a personalized virtual desktop accessible from any device with an Internet connection. Symbaloo users, which must be previously registered, have a page with a grid of buttons that can be configured to link to a specific page. The site allows users to assign different colors to the buttons for easy visual classification. Symbaloo allows a single user to create different pages or screens with buttons. These screens called webmix are useful to separate topics and links can be shared with other users, making them public and sending the link via email. As of 2015 Symbaloo has 6 million users worldwide and mainly used as an online education resource. Symbaloo's slogan is "Start Simple".

  Read more →
• 

  Coronavirus breathalyzer

  A coronavirus breathalyzer is a diagnostic medical device enabling the user to test with 90% or greater accuracy the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in an exhaled breath. As of the first half of 2020, the idea of a practical coronavirus breathalyzer was concomitantly developed by unrelated research groups in Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, Indonesia, Israel, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, United Kingdom and the USA. == Australia == In Australia, GreyScan CEO Samantha Ollerton and Prof. Michael Breadmore of the University of Tasmania are basing a coronavirus breathalyzer on existing technology that is used around the world to detect explosives. Another invention published from ABC News; produced by Colin Hickey and Examin Holdings, have released information on a new breathalyzer called the "Queensland Breath test" claiming its function has 98% efficiency, equipped with a replaceable plastic nozzle for reusability (February 2022). a statement in claim by Bruce Thompson, a professor at Swinburne University of Technology, Although this products is reliable, due to insufficient funding, the product is inaccessible. == Canada == Canary Health Technologies, headquartered in Toronto with offices in Cleveland, Ohio, is developing a breathalyzer with disposable nanosensors using AI-powered cloud-based analysis. According to a press release, clinical trials began in India during November 2020. The stated goal is to develop an accurate, reasonably priced screening tool that can be used anywhere and deliver a result in less than a minute. The company postulates that analyzing volatile organic compounds in human breath could potentially detect diseases before the on-set of symptoms, earlier than currently available methods. Moreover, the cloud-based technology is designed to be used as a disease surveillance apparatus. == Finland == By the end of June 2020, Forum Virium Helsinki, in collaboration with Finnish software firm Deep Sensing Algorithms, funded by the Helsinki-Uusimaa Regional Council, announced that testing of their device had begun with a control group in Kazakhstan, with plans to expand to the Netherlands, the United States, South Africa, Brazil and Finland throughout the summer. The efficacy of the Forum Virium Helsinki / Deep Sensing Algorithms device hinges on its AI component. "We are engaged in innovative cooperation with corporations to solve the coronavirus crisis, and we will help firms to use the city as a development platform. We are utilizing artificial intelligence and digitalization," said Forum Virium Helsinki CEO Mika Malin. == Germany == In March 2020, the Singaporean company RAM Global conducted research in Germany in hopes of developing a one-minute breathalyzer test for SARS-CoV-2 based on terahertz time-domain spectroscopy. The company attempted to develop a disposable test kit for direct detection of COVID-19 virion particles in breath, saliva and swab samples. On 31 March, RAM Global completed an initial clinical study on live patients at University Hospital Saarland. In April, the company pursued a small unknown sample study in which hospital doctors provided unknown samples in order to test accuracy in differentiating positive and negative samples. == Indonesia == Since April 2020, a team of researchers from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) has been developing an electronic nose called GeNose C19. The GeNose C19 can be used as a rapid, non-invasive screening tool in less than two minutes. A profiling test was carried out at the Bhayangkara Hospital and the Covid Bambanglipuro Special Field Hospital in Yogyakarta. GeNose C19 consists of gas sensors and an artificial intelligence-based pattern recognition system. The diagnostic test was carried out with the cooperation of nine multi-center hospitals. In the end of December 2020, GeNose C19 received a distribution permit from Indonesia's Health Ministry. Initially, 100 units will be released and each device will be able to perform 120 tests per day. The test is estimated to cost 15,000–25,000 Indonesian rupiah ($1–$1.8) and would take three minutes for the test and another two minutes to yield a result. Researchers hope to manufacture up to 1,000 GeNose C19 units, increasing the country's testing capabilities by 120 thousand subjects per day. Moreover, they aim to manufacture 10,000 units by February 2021. == Israel == In Israel, it is at the photonics lab of Gabby Sarusi, professor at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, that research is underway as of midsummer 2020. Separately from Sarusi's project, in July 2020, it was reported that Israeli start-up Nanoscent in cooperation with Sheba Medical Center had devised a breathalyzer that Magen David Adom (MDA) is seeking to incorporate into existing drive-thru testing stations located throughout the country. Questionable intellectual property of Gabby Sarusi regarding this project is now under discussion in the court in Israel. == The Netherlands == A breath test with the SpiroNose device, made by the Dutch company Breathomix, has been developed and tested in collaboration with the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), Franciscus Gasthuis & Vlietland and the GGD Amsterdam. The breath test has been validated as a pre-screening test for people who have no or mild symptoms of COVID-19. From April 2021, the device was operational in COVID-19 test drive-ins, conferences and events, i.e. Eurovision Song Contest 2021. Subjects must abstain from alcohol for eight hours prior to taking the breath test. The SpiroNose contains four sets of seven different sensors that can measure the mixture of volatile organic compounds (biomarkers) in the exhaled air. These VOCs provide a picture of a person's metabolism. This 'breath profile' is forwarded to an online analysis platform. Here the breath profile is compared with other breath profiles of people with and without a COVID-19 diagnosis and analysed by algorithms. Data-analysis involves advanced signal processing and statistics based on independent t-tests followed by linear discriminant and ROC analysis. The test result is known within minutes. The breath test has a sensitivity/specificity for SARS-CoV-2 infection of 100/78, >99/84, 98/82% in validation, replication and asymptomatic cohorts of patients. The breath test reliably detects who is not infected. Such a subject will receive a test result immediately. Other subjects must promptly conduct a subsequent test, for example a PCR test or LAMP test. The test results can be viewed by the client and are not automatically interfaced to other databases, i.e. for public health surveillance, source and contact tracing, vaccination programs. In July 2021, the ministry stopped the tests with the SpiroNose because, according to the GGD, the device gives unusable results in some cases. Breathomix indicates that this is the result of the way in which the SpiroNose is deployed. The SpiroNose is and remains a reliable instrument for lung diseases. The analysis platform is developed conform the requirements of the standard ISO 27001 (Information Security) and NEN 7510 (Information Security in Health Care). A CE marking has been requested. In the meantime, the Dutch minister has granted a CE marking exemption on 25 January 2021. The device may also be used to detect other diseases, e.g., asthma, COPD, lung cancer, interstitial lung diseases (ILD). == Poland == In February 2021, the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, announced that ML System S. A., headquartered in Zaczernie, Poland, had successfully developed a means of analyzing a patient's breath to test for the presence of coronavirus. According to an anonymous press release, test subjects exhale into a device in order to determine the presence of the coronavirus. The procedure, similar to that of a police breathalyzer, is said to take less than ten seconds. Independent clinical trials were begun in April 2021. In the first half of May 2021, a brief text concerning partial results was published by ML System, stating that independent clinical trials were successful with specificity (97,15%) and accuracy/sensitivity (86,86%), for CT (Cycle Threshold) assumed at 25, which is in line with the guidelines set out by the World Health Organization. Moreover, ML System in partnership with Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport published a statement indicating their intention to test the device at the airport. Similar plans exist between the manufacturer and the Warsaw Chopin Airport. Two large networks of laboratories in Poland, "Diagnostyka" and "ALAB Laboratoria", have signed a letter of intent with ML System. In agreement with ALAB, the parties declared cooperation in the implementation of the product named "COVID DETECTOR" on the Polish, German and Ukrainian markets. In addition, the companies declared joint activities aimed at extending the diagnosis with the use of "COVID Detector" to include mutations of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, differentiate the stage of the disease and ot

  Read more →
• 

  Cooperative coevolution

  Cooperative Coevolution (CC) in the field of biological evolution is an evolutionary computation method. It divides a large problem into subcomponents, and solves them independently in order to solve the large problem. The subcomponents are also called species. The subcomponents are implemented as subpopulations and the only interaction between subpopulations is in the cooperative evaluation of each individual of the subpopulations. The general CC framework is nature inspired where the individuals of a particular group of species mate amongst themselves, however, mating in between different species is not feasible. The cooperative evaluation of each individual in a subpopulation is done by concatenating the current individual with the best individuals from the rest of the subpopulations as described by M. Potter. The cooperative coevolution framework has been applied to real world problems such as pedestrian detection systems, large-scale function optimization and neural network training. It has also be further extended into another method, called Constructive cooperative coevolution. == Pseudocode == i := 0 for each subproblem S do Initialise a subpopulation Pop0(S) calculate fitness of each member in Pop0(S) while termination criteria not satisfied do i := i + 1 for each subproblem S do select Popi(S) from Popi-1(S) apply genetic operators to Popi(S) calculate fitness of each member in Popi(S)

  Read more →
• 

  Iron Man 2020 (event)

  "Iron Man 2020" is a storyline published by Marvel Comics in 2020 which follows the character Arno Stark as he attempts to take over Stark Industries and the mantle of his estranged brother Tony Stark (Iron Man). The crossover characters of two different brands meeting up in one storyline received mixed reviews from critics. == Publication history == Marvel Comics released the teaser for the event at New York Comic Con in November 2019. It was also alluded to in December 2019's Incoming! In the original checklist released for the event, 2020 Force Works was originally titled Force Works 2020, while 2020 Machine Man was previously named Machine Man 2020, and so on. Additionally, 2020 Wolverine was going to be called Weapon.EXE 2020. The publication of this event was intended to span from January to June 2020, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Diamond Comic Distributors suspended the distribution of new print titles between April 1 and May 27, which also caused digital releases by Marvel Entertainment to be postponed. The rescheduling of the postponed issues to new dates pushed the event's conclusion to August, and certain issues, namely 2020 Force Works #3 and 2020 Ironheart #1–2, were released exclusively in a digital format. == Main plot == Arno Stark wakes up from a nightmare involving the Extinction Entity, a monstrous amalgamation of alien and machine. He dreams that the Extinction Entity is going to come to Earth in a matter of weeks and create an artificial intelligence (A.I.) army to consume humanity. After eating breakfast with duplicates of Howard Stark and Maria Stark, Arno suits up as Iron Man and saves a construction worker from a hostage situation involving several Nick Fury Life Model Decoys, which represent the A.I. army trying to liberate construction robots. Over different news outlets, the media wonders about the whereabouts of Tony Stark, who declared himself as nothing more than a simulation of the real, late Tony Stark. At the A.I. army's base, Machine Man is commanding the robots' moves when Arno appears, having planned for the A.I. army's leader to show himself. Machine Man activates the bomb, forcing Arno to fly it away so it explodes somewhere safe while he escapes. Machine Man reaches the Thirteenth Floor, a dimensional-shunted plane of existence made of solid light, and a haven for robotkind that humans cannot access or comprehend. Aaron meets with the leader of the A.I. army and creator of Thirteenth Floor: Tony Stark -- who is now going by the name Mark One, having embraced his nature as artificial intelligence. Also in the A.I. army are Albert, Awesome Android, H.E.R.B.I.E., Machinesmith, and Quasimodo. The A.I. army continues its efforts to liberate artificial life forms by raiding places where robots are being subjugated. Iron Man intercepts an attack on a Futura Motors testing site by Quasimodo and H.E.R.B.I.E. and manages to recover an Un-Inhibitor allowing him to take control of all A.I.s. On the Thirteenth Floor, Mark One receives a transmission from a mole inside Baintronics -- codenamed Ghost in the Machine --revealing that Arno used the submission code on Jocasta, who received a new body, making her entirely compliant. Stark plans to upload the submission code to the internet to instantly infect robots. With only three hours before the code is transmitted to Stark Unlimited's satellite network, Mark One devises a heist on Bain Tower to tamper with the code before launch. Having discovered the secret behind the Thirteenth Floor, Arno shuts out the A.I. army, uses Jocasta to lure Machine Man away from the tower, infects Machinesmith with the submission code, and confronts Mark One. H.E.R.B.I.E., Awesome Android, and Machinesmith escape from Bain Tower and call for help to every robot in New York City. Mark One is left to fight Iron Man and is defeated. Meanwhile, Sunset Bain confronts and fires Andy Bhang under the accusation of working as a mole inside Stark Unlimited and feeding Bethany Cabe information to relay to the A.I. army. Arno takes Mark One inside Bain Tower to meet Howard and Maria Stark and asks Tony to join him, but he refuses and dismisses his rationale as lunacy. The robotic mob assembled by Machine Man reaches Bain Tower, giving Mark a distraction which allows him to fly off and disable the transmission dish from which Arno intends to broadcast the obedience O.S. to subjugate every robot. Tony manages to stop the upload and make the antenna unusable. In retaliation, Arno fires all of his armor's firepower at Tony as he falls to the ground. Tony Stark's remaining allies escape with his body as Arno attacks the robot protesters. Tony wakes up inside the Thirteenth Floor and is greeted by F.R.I.D.A.Y., who had plucked Tony's consciousness from his body during his fall. In the streets, Arno Stark tracks down Howard and Maria, who die from an illness inherited from Arno. When Sunset Bain objects to Arno creating new bodies for his parents and trying to control people, he reveals she is an A.I., a duplicate of the real Bain whom Arno replaced back when she solicited him to heal a scar on her face. He makes new bodies for Howard and Maria by recreating the Arsenal and Mistress bodies from the eScape. After learning of Arno's new plan, Dr. Shapiro (who is the actual mole) sneaks into a computer and warns F.R.I.D.A.Y. about it. When F.R.I.D.A.Y. relays that only Tony Stark can stop Arno, Tony insists that he is not the real Tony Stark, but is confronted by holographic manifestations of himself in different points of his life, until they all merge into him and he acknowledges that he has always been Tony. As Arno Stark sets off to the Stark Space Station to install his mind-controlling device to enslave all of humanity, Tony Stark's allies assault the Stark Unlimited HQ, confronting Sunset Bain's duplicate and Arno's Iron Legion. Jocasta uploads a submission code to Bain and they place Tony's body inside a bio-pod that restores his body to normalcy, uploads his consciousness back into his body. Using the Thirteenth Floor's access mechanisms, Tony and his allies reach the Stark Space Station from one of the elevators within. Employing his new Virtual Armor, Tony defeats Arno in combat. When Arno prepares to activate his mind-controlling device, the Extinction Entity suddenly appears. Arno ultimately defeats the Extinction Entity by willingly assimilating with it, causing it to explode. The entity is revealed to be a delusion caused by Arno's terminal disease, of which he would die by the end of 2020. Unable to stop Arno, Tony placed him in a simulation where he successfully stopped the entity. Afterwards, Jocasta uses the submission code to force Sunset Bain's duplicate to confess all of Baintronics' crimes, also claiming responsibility for tricking Tony into thinking he was an artificial intelligence and pulling the strings of the A.I. Army, putting an end to the robot revolution. Tony gives up Stark Unlimited to Bhang Robotics and he flies off in a new armor, reasserting himself as Iron Man. == Issues involved == === Main issues === Iron Man 2020 (vol. 2) #1–6 === Tie-In issues === 2020 Force Works #1–3 2020 Iron Age #1 2020 Ironheart #1–2 2020 Machine Man #1–2 2020 Rescue #1–2 2020 iWolverine #1–2 == Critical reception == According to Comic Book Roundup, the entire crossover received an average score of 6.4 out of 10 based on 36 reviews. William Tucker from ButWhyTho Podcast stated "Iron Man 2020 #6 is an initially exciting end to a great event that eventually feels deflated. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the art, Woods has been incredible throughout, but the ending that Slott and Gage chose to round out an epic tale like this left me feeling cold. And while there were loads of enjoyable cameos, their involvement ultimately didn't seem important to the story as a whole. Which is disappointing, as the rest of the event really was a fun and exciting ride." Anthony Wendel from MonkeysFightingRobots wrote "The 2020 event seems like it is taking some big risk, and it doesn't inspire a lot of confidence from the start. Iron Man 2020 #1 has set the stakes and shown some very intense players on both sides of the board. Sadly, if it doesn't unfold just the right way, many may feel cheated about defending the path characters are taking." == Collected editions ==

  Read more →
• 

  Energy-based model

  An energy-based model (EBM), also called Canonical Ensemble Learning (CEL) or Learning via Canonical Ensemble (LCE), is an application of canonical ensemble formulation from statistical physics for learning from data. The approach prominently appears in generative artificial intelligence. EBMs provide a unified framework for many probabilistic and non-probabilistic approaches to such learning, particularly for training graphical and other structured models. An EBM learns the characteristics of a target dataset and generates a similar but larger dataset. EBMs detect the latent variables of a dataset and generate new datasets with a similar distribution. Energy-based generative neural networks is a class of generative models, which aim to learn explicit probability distributions of data in the form of energy-based models, the energy functions of which are parameterized by modern deep neural networks. Boltzmann machines are a special form of energy-based models with a specific parametrization of the energy. == Description == For a given input x {\displaystyle x} , the model describes an energy E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} such that the Boltzmann distribution P θ ( x ) = e − β E θ ( x ) Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle P_{\theta }(x)={e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)} \over Z(\theta )}} is a probability (density), and typically β = 1 {\displaystyle \beta =1} . Since the normalization constant: Z ( θ ) := ∫ x ∈ X e − β E θ ( x ) d x {\displaystyle Z(\theta ):=\int _{x\in X}e^{-\beta E_{\theta }(x)}dx} (also known as the partition function) depends on all the Boltzmann factors of all possible inputs x {\displaystyle x} , it cannot be easily computed or reliably estimated during training simply using standard maximum likelihood estimation. However, for maximizing the likelihood during training, the gradient of the log-likelihood of a single training example x {\displaystyle x} is given by using the chain rule: ∂ θ log ⁡ ( P θ ( x ) ) = E x ′ ∼ P θ [ ∂ θ E θ ( x ′ ) ] − ∂ θ E θ ( x ) ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle \partial _{\theta }\log \left(P_{\theta }(x)\right)=\mathbb {E} _{x'\sim P_{\theta }}[\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x')]-\partial _{\theta }E_{\theta }(x)\,()} The expectation in the above formula for the gradient can be approximately estimated by drawing samples x ′ {\displaystyle x'} from the distribution P θ {\displaystyle P_{\theta }} using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Early energy-based models, such as the 2003 Boltzmann machine by Hinton, estimated this expectation via blocked Gibbs sampling. Newer approaches make use of more efficient Stochastic Gradient Langevin Dynamics (LD), drawing samples using: x 0 ′ ∼ P 0 , x i + 1 ′ = x i ′ − α 2 ∂ E θ ( x i ′ ) ∂ x i ′ + ϵ {\displaystyle x_{0}'\sim P_{0},x_{i+1}'=x_{i}'-{\frac {\alpha }{2}}{\frac {\partial E_{\theta }(x_{i}')}{\partial x_{i}'}}+\epsilon } , where ϵ ∼ N ( 0 , α ) {\displaystyle \epsilon \sim {\mathcal {N}}(0,\alpha )} . A replay buffer of past values x i ′ {\displaystyle x_{i}'} is used with LD to initialize the optimization module. The parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } of the neural network are therefore trained in a generative manner via MCMC-based maximum likelihood estimation: the learning process follows an "analysis by synthesis" scheme, where within each learning iteration, the algorithm samples the synthesized examples from the current model by a gradient-based MCMC method (e.g., Langevin dynamics or Hybrid Monte Carlo), and then updates the parameters θ {\displaystyle \theta } based on the difference between the training examples and the synthesized ones – see equation ( ∗ ) {\displaystyle ()} . This process can be interpreted as an alternating mode seeking and mode shifting process, and also has an adversarial interpretation. Essentially, the model learns a function E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} that associates low energies to correct values, and higher energies to incorrect values. After training, given a converged energy model E θ {\displaystyle E_{\theta }} , the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm can be used to draw new samples. The acceptance probability is given by: P a c c ( x i → x ∗ ) = min ( 1 , P θ ( x ∗ ) P θ ( x i ) ) . {\displaystyle P_{acc}(x_{i}\to x^{})=\min \left(1,{\frac {P_{\theta }(x^{})}{P_{\theta }(x_{i})}}\right).} == History == The term "energy-based models" was first coined in a 2003 JMLR paper where the authors defined a generalisation of independent components analysis to the overcomplete setting using EBMs. Other early work on EBMs proposed models that represented energy as a composition of latent and observable variables. == Characteristics == EBMs demonstrate useful properties: Simplicity and stability. The EBM is the only object that needs to be designed and trained. Separate networks need not be trained to ensure balance. Adaptive computation time. An EBM can generate sharp, diverse samples or (more quickly) coarse, less diverse samples. Given infinite time, this procedure produces true samples. Flexibility. In Variational Autoencoders (VAE) and flow-based models, the generator learns a map from a continuous space to a (possibly) discontinuous space containing different data modes. EBMs can learn to assign low energies to disjoint regions (multiple modes). Adaptive generation. EBM generators are implicitly defined by the probability distribution, and automatically adapt as the distribution changes (without training), allowing EBMs to address domains where generator training is impractical, as well as minimizing mode collapse and avoiding spurious modes from out-of-distribution samples. Compositionality. Individual models are unnormalized probability distributions, allowing models to be combined through product of experts or other hierarchical techniques. == Experimental results == On image datasets such as CIFAR-10 and ImageNet 32x32, an EBM model generated high-quality images relatively quickly. It supported combining features learned from one type of image for generating other types of images. It was able to generalize using out-of-distribution datasets, outperforming flow-based and autoregressive models. EBM was relatively resistant to adversarial perturbations, behaving better than models explicitly trained against them with training for classification. == Applications == Target applications include natural language processing, robotics and computer vision. The first energy-based generative neural network is the generative ConvNet proposed in 2016 for image patterns, where the neural network is a convolutional neural network. The model has been generalized to various domains to learn distributions of videos, and 3D voxels. They are made more effective in their variants. They have proven useful for data generation (e.g., image synthesis, video synthesis, 3D shape synthesis, etc.), data recovery (e.g., recovering videos with missing pixels or image frames, 3D super-resolution, etc), data reconstruction (e.g., image reconstruction and linear interpolation ). == Alternatives == EBMs compete with techniques such as variational autoencoders (VAEs), generative adversarial networks (GANs) or normalizing flows. == Extensions == === Joint energy-based models === Joint energy-based models (JEM), proposed in 2020 by Grathwohl et al., allow any classifier with softmax output to be interpreted as energy-based model. The key observation is that such a classifier is trained to predict the conditional probability p θ ( y | x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] ∑ j = 1 K e f → θ ( x ) [ j ] for y = 1 , … , K and f → θ = ( f 1 , … , f K ) ∈ R K , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y|x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{\sum _{j=1}^{K}e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[j]}}}\ \ {\text{ for }}y=1,\dotsc ,K{\text{ and }}{\vec {f}}_{\theta }=(f_{1},\dotsc ,f_{K})\in \mathbb {R} ^{K},} where f → θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]} is the y-th index of the logits f → {\displaystyle {\vec {f}}} corresponding to class y. Without any change to the logits it was proposed to reinterpret the logits to describe a joint probability density: p θ ( y , x ) = e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(y,x)={\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}},} with unknown partition function Z ( θ ) {\displaystyle Z(\theta )} and energy E θ ( x , y ) = − f θ ( x ) [ y ] {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x,y)=-f_{\theta }(x)[y]} . By marginalization, we obtain the unnormalized density p θ ( x ) = ∑ y p θ ( y , x ) = ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) =: e − E θ ( x ) , {\displaystyle p_{\theta }(x)=\sum _{y}p_{\theta }(y,x)=\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}=:e^{-E_{\theta }(x)},} therefore, E θ ( x ) = − log ⁡ ( ∑ y e f → θ ( x ) [ y ] Z ( θ ) ) , {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)=-\log \left(\sum _{y}{\frac {e^{{\vec {f}}_{\theta }(x)[y]}}{Z(\theta )}}\right),} so that any classifier can be used to define an energy function E θ ( x ) {\displaystyle E_{\theta }(x)} .

  Read more →
• 

  AI takeover

  An AI takeover is a theorized future event, often depicted in fiction, in which autonomous artificial intelligence systems acquire the capability to supersede human decisions. This could occur through economic manipulation, infrastructure control, or direct intervention, leading to de facto governance. Scenarios range from gradual economic dominance, as automation supplants the human workforce, up to a sudden or aggressive global takeover by a robot uprising or other forms of rogue AI. Stories of AI takeovers have been popular throughout science fiction. Commentators argue that recent advancements in the field have heightened concern about such scenarios. In public debate, prominent figures such as Stephen Hawking have advocated research into precautionary measures to ensure future superintelligent machines remain under human control. == Types == === Automation of the economy === The traditional consensus among economists has been that technological progress does not cause long-term unemployment. However, recent innovation in the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence has raised worries that human labor will become obsolete, leaving workers in some sectors without employment. Many small and medium-sized firms may also be forced to close if they cannot afford or license the latest robotic and AI technology, and may need to focus on areas or services that cannot easily be replaced for continued viability in the face of such technology. ==== Technologies that may displace workers ==== While these technologies have replaced some traditional workers, they also create new opportunities. Industries that are most susceptible to AI-driven automation include transportation, retail, and the military. AI military technologies, for example, can reduce risk by enabling remote operation. A study in 2024 highlights AI's ability to perform routine and repetitive tasks poses significant risks of job displacement, especially in sectors like manufacturing and administrative support. Author Dave Bond argues that as AI technologies continue to develop and expand, the relationship between humans and robots will change; they will become closely integrated in several aspects of life. AI will likely displace some workers while creating opportunities for new jobs in other sectors, especially in fields where tasks are repeatable. Researchers from Stanford's Digital Economy Lab reported in 2025 that since the widespread adoption of generative AI in late 2022, early-career workers (ages 22–25) in the most AI-exposed occupations have experienced a 13 percent relative decline in employment—even after controlling for firm-level shocks—while overall employment has continued to grow robustly. The study further finds that job losses are concentrated in roles where AI automates routine tasks, whereas occupations that leverage AI to augment human work have seen stable or increasing employment. ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing uses computers to control the production process. This allows individual processes to exchange information with each other and initiate actions. Although manufacturing can be faster and less error-prone through the integration of computers, the main advantage is the ability to create automated manufacturing processes. Computer-integrated manufacturing is used in automotive, aviation, space, and shipbuilding industries. ==== White-collar machines ==== The 21st century has seen a variety of skilled tasks partially taken over by machines, including translation, legal research, and journalism. Care work, entertainment, and other tasks requiring empathy, previously thought safe from automation, are increasingly performed by robots and AI systems. ==== Autonomous cars ==== An autonomous car is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Many such vehicles are operational and others are being developed, with legislation rapidly expanding to allow their use. Obstacles to widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles have included concerns about the resulting loss of driving-related jobs in the road transport industry, and safety concerns. On March 18, 2018, a pedestrian was struck and killed in Tempe, Arizona by an Uber self-driving car. ==== AI-generated content ==== In the 2020s, automated content became more relevant due to technological advancements in AI models, such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion. In most cases, AI-generated content such as imagery, literature, and music are produced through text prompts. These AI models are sometimes integrated into creative programs. AI-generated art may sample and conglomerate existing creative works, producing results that appear similar to human-made content. Low-quality AI-generated visual artwork can be informally referred to as AI slop. Some artists use a tool called Nightshade that alters images to make them detrimental to the training of text-to-image models if scraped without permission, while still looking normal to humans. AI-generated images are a potential tool for scammers and those looking to gain followers on social media, either to impersonate a famous individual or group or to monetize their audience. The New York Times has sued OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement related to the training and outputs of its AI models. === Eradication === Scientists such as Stephen Hawking are confident that superhuman artificial intelligence is physically possible, stating "there is no physical law precluding particles from being organised in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains". According to Nick Bostrom, a superintelligent machine would not necessarily be motivated by the same emotional desire to collect power that often drives human beings but might rather treat power as a means toward attaining its ultimate goals; taking over the world would both increase its access to resources and help to prevent other agents from stopping the machine's plans. As a simplified example, a paperclip maximizer designed solely to create as many paperclips as possible would want to take over the world so that it can use all of the world's resources to create as many paperclips as possible, and, additionally, prevent humans from shutting it down or using those resources on things other than paperclips. There are debates on how realistic AI takeover scenarios are. According to a 2026 research paper, many of the arguments about existential risks are based on speculative assumptions about how intelligent AI systems could become, how they would behave and what goals they might develop over time. A 2023 Reuters/Ipsos survey showed that 61% of American adults feared AI could pose a threat to civilization. Philosopher Niels Wilde refutes the common thread that artificial intelligence inherently presents a looming threat to humanity, stating that these fears stem from perceived intelligence and lack of transparency in AI systems that more closely reflects the human aspects of it rather than those of a machine. AI alignment research studies how to design AI systems so that they follow intended objectives. == Debate == Physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and SpaceX founder Elon Musk have expressed concerns about the possibility that AI could develop to the point that humans could not control it, with Hawking theorizing that this could "spell the end of the human race". Stephen Hawking said in 2014 that "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks." Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer "incalculable benefits and risks" such as "technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand." In January 2015, Nick Bostrom joined Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, Elon Musk, Lord Martin Rees, Jaan Tallinn, and numerous AI researchers in signing the Future of Life Institute's open letter speaking to the potential risks and benefits associated with artificial intelligence. The signatories "believe that research on how to make AI systems robust and beneficial is both important and timely, and that there are concrete research directions that can be pursued today." Some focus has been placed on the development of trustworthy AI. Three statements have been posed as to why AI is not inherently trustworthy: 1. An entity X is trustworthy only if X has the right motivations, goodwill and/or adheres to moral obligations towards the trustor; 2. AI systems lack motivations, goodwill, and moral obligations; 3. Therefore, AI systems cannot be trustworthy. There are additional considerations within this framework of trustworthy AI that go further into the fields of explainable artificial intelligence and respect for human privacy. Zanotti and colleagues

  Read more →
• 

  AI Snake Oil

  AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can't, and How to Tell the Difference is a 2024 non-fiction book written by scholars Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor. It is a critique of the tech industry's overly inflated promises and capabilities of artificial intelligence (AI) as well as a debunking of the flawed science fueling AI hype while attempting to outline both the potential positives and negatives that come with different modes of the technology. == Contents == === Publication === The book was published in September 2024 by the Princeton University Press. AI Snake Oil consists of 360 pages and features eight chapters, and sections for acknowledgements, references, and an index. An updated edition with a new preface and epilogue by the authors was published in September 2025. The authors use the term "AI snake oil" derived from the U.S. idiom for a fraudulent remedy, to describe overhyped AI systems. === Chapter one: Introduction === Narayanan and Kapoor argue that many individuals do not yet have the literacy to detect functioning aspects of AI compared to potential snake oil, which they identify as "AI that does not and cannot work as advertised". Some of the major examples utilized by the authors include Allstate's 2013 use of predictive AI, as well as the concern surrounding actors and AI attempting to replicate or use their likeness. Important discussions regarding discrimination are brought up and explored in the first chapter, including the false arrests of six Black individuals due to errors with AI facial recognition tools. The chapter concludes with a comparison to the Industrial Revolution, where Narayanan and Kapoor highlight the extensive human labour that is necessary for artificial intelligence technologies to function. === Chapter two: How Predictive AI Goes Wrong === Chapter two focuses on predictive artificial intelligence, and criticizes the overestimation of the capabilities of the technology. === Chapter three: Why Can't AI Predict the Future? === Chapter three works to inform the reader about the history of early computational prediction attempts, with examples from companies like Simulatics. === Chapter four: The Long Road to Generative AI === The fourth chapter goes in more in-depth in explorations of generative AI. Generative AI software examples include ChatGPT, Midjourney, and DALL-E. The section begins with a positive example of generative AI. As the chapter progresses, the authors begin to provide examples of harm produced by generative AI, including the suicide of a Belgian man after connecting with Chai, a generative chatbot. Issues of deepfakes and preservation of artistic property are also discussed. The use of generative AI to create non-consensual pornographic deepfake content is discussed in relation to female celebrities. === Chapter five: Is Advanced AI an Existential Threat? === The fifth chapter draws attention the AGI, or Artificial General Intelligence. The authors describe AGI as "AI that can perform most or economically relevant tasks as effectively as any human". They summarize that many contributors to the field of artificial intelligence believe AGI to be an impending threat that demands attention. However, they argue that the perceived threat of AGI would only exist if the technology continually functioned reliably. In order to better illustrate the hype surrounding AGI, Narayanan and Kapoor use the Ladder of Generality, which is described as a visual tool in which "each rung represents a way of computing that is more flexible, and more general, than the previous one". They note that we are not yet aware of the next rungs on the ladder, or if the ladder will eventually result in a dead end. The rungs that have been identified so far are as follows: (0, or floor) special purpose hardware, (1) programmable computers, (2) stored program computers, (3) machine learning, (4) deep learning, (5) pretrained models, and, finally, (6) instruction-tuned models. The potential for future rungs and what those rungs might be are currently undetermined. The chapter also discusses the ELIZA effect, which Lawrence Switzky discusses in his article "ELIZA Effects". Switzky attributes the coined term ELIZA Effect to Sherry Turke, who defined it as "our more general tendency to treat responsive computer programs as more intelligent than they really are". === Chapter six: Why Can't AI Fix Social Media? === The sixth chapter focuses on content moderation, why it is important, and how it has been and could be affected by artificial automation. The first issue raised in regard to AI-driven content moderation is the inability for computers and machines to understand context and nuance, resulting in potential for discriminatory moderation and shadow banning. While they note that there are issues with automating content moderation, Narayanan and Kapoor also highlight the psychological impact on human content moderators and their labour. They indicate the hidden labour behind moderation, which is often outsourced to less developed countries, where labourers sort through potentially traumatizing content for pay. However, the discussion focuses more heavily on why automated moderation can be problematic, including discriminatory algorithms and lack of nuance. To balance their argument, issues of discrimination and bias are also discussed in relation the human content moderators. To automate moderation, there are two types of AI used, which are fingerprint matching and machine learning. === Chapter seven: Why Do Myths about AI Persist? === The seventh chapter outlines possible factors that contribute to hype surrounding AI. Narayanan and Kapoor explain how companies often promote their new AI models without properly disclosing how the model works, and what it is learning from. They attribute hype to several different groups, including journalists, researchers, and companies. They explain the impact of companies and the misplaced hype that they spread can be attributed to greed and a desire to grow corporate funds. For journalists, one of the stated sources of hype, they argue that news media has a tendency to prioritize financial incentives over validity and quality of writing. As well, Narayanan and Kapoor point out the emergence of company statement regurgitation in news media, leading to clickbait. Hype from researchers is potentially linked to lack of reproducibility in studies as well as leakage, which occurs when AI models are tested on their training data. === Chapter eight: Where do we go from here? === The final chapter, chapter eight, turns its attention to the future. The authors express their ideas and predictions for how the technology will evolve and be utilized in the upcoming years. == Authors == Author Narayanan is a computer science professor at Princeton University. Kapoor is a doctoral candidate at the same university, and both scholars are located at the Center for Information Technology at Princeton. In 2023, Narayanan and Kapoor appeared on the TIME100 Artificial Intelligence list, which features influential figures in the field. == Reception == Nature, a science and technology peer-reviewed journal, released an article highlighting the top "10 essential reads from the past year", listing Arvind Narayanan and Sayash Kapoor's AI Snake Oil. The article states the that text is "one of the best on this controversial subject". Elizabeth Quill, in her review of the text in Science News, writes that the authors "squarely achieve their stated goal: to empower people to distinguish AI that works well from AI snake oil". Joshua Rothman of The New Yorker writes that "compared with many technologists, Narayanan, Kapoor, and Vallor [Shannon Vallor, University of Edinburgh], are deeply skeptical about today's A.I. technology and what it can achieve. Perhaps they shouldn't be". Rothman argues, following an interview with prominent computer scientist Geoffrey Hinton of University of Toronto, that the potential for AI to replicate complexity is already here and continues to be heavily funded, enhancing the prospective capabilities of the technology. However, he does praise the author's ability to address questions regarding the existential human experience. Alexya Martinez discusses the text in a book review for Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, critiquing AI Snake Oil for its extensive focus on the West. Martinez writes that Narayanan and Kapoor "do not fully explore how AI impacts other countries", and suggests more focus on countries outside of the United States to enhance their argument.

  Read more →
• 

  Futuresport

  Futuresport is a 1998 American made-for-television sports film directed by Ernest Dickerson, starring Dean Cain, Vanessa Williams, and Wesley Snipes. It originally aired on ABC in October 1998, was released on VHS and DVD in March 1999 and then distributed outside of the U.S. by Minerva Pictures. == Plot == The film is set in 2025, and centers on a sport called "Futuresport" (a combination of basketball, baseball and hockey that uses hoverboards and rollerblades) created as a non-lethal way to reduce gang warfare. Tre Ramzey (Dean Cain) along with his ex-girlfriend Alex Torres (Vanessa Williams) and his old coach Obike Fixx (Wesley Snipes) must prevent an all out war between the North American Alliance and the Pan-Pacific Commonwealth (The Com). At stake is who rules over the Hawaiian Islands—which are being terrorized by Eric Sythe (JR Bourne) and his gang the Hawaiian Liberation Organization (Hilo). It takes a revolutionary sport to stop a revolution. == Cast ==

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge integration

  Knowledge integration is the process of synthesizing multiple knowledge models (or representations) into a common model (representation). Compared to information integration, which involves merging information having different schemas and representation models, knowledge integration focuses more on synthesizing the understanding of a given subject from different perspectives. For example, multiple interpretations are possible of a set of student grades, typically each from a certain perspective. An overall, integrated view and understanding of this information can be achieved if these interpretations can be put under a common model, say, a student performance index. The Web-based Inquiry Science Environment (WISE), from the University of California at Berkeley has been developed along the lines of knowledge integration theory. Knowledge integration has also been studied as the process of incorporating new information into a body of existing knowledge with an interdisciplinary approach. This process involves determining how the new information and the existing knowledge interact, how existing knowledge should be modified to accommodate the new information, and how the new information should be modified in light of the existing knowledge. A learning agent that actively investigates the consequences of new information can detect and exploit a variety of learning opportunities; e.g., to resolve knowledge conflicts and to fill knowledge gaps. By exploiting these learning opportunities the learning agent is able to learn beyond the explicit content of the new information. The machine learning program KI, developed by Murray and Porter at the University of Texas at Austin, was created to study the use of automated and semi-automated knowledge integration to assist knowledge engineers constructing a large knowledge base. A possible technique which can be used is semantic matching. More recently, a technique useful to minimize the effort in mapping validation and visualization has been presented which is based on Minimal Mappings. Minimal mappings are high quality mappings such that i) all the other mappings can be computed from them in time linear in the size of the input graphs, and ii) none of them can be dropped without losing property i). The University of Waterloo operates a Bachelor of Knowledge Integration undergraduate degree program as an academic major or minor. The program started in 2008.

  Read more →
• 

  Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems

  Type-2 fuzzy sets and systems generalize standard type-1 fuzzy sets and systems so that more uncertainty can be handled. From the beginning of fuzzy sets, criticism was made about the fact that the membership function of a type-1 fuzzy set has no uncertainty associated with it, something that seems to contradict the word fuzzy, since that word has the connotation of much uncertainty. So, what does one do when there is uncertainty about the value of the membership function? The answer to this question was provided in 1975 by the inventor of fuzzy sets, Lotfi A. Zadeh, when he proposed more sophisticated kinds of fuzzy sets, the first of which he called a "type-2 fuzzy set". A type-2 fuzzy set lets us incorporate uncertainty about the membership function into fuzzy set theory, and is a way to address the above criticism of type-1 fuzzy sets head-on. And, if there is no uncertainty, then a type-2 fuzzy set reduces to a type-1 fuzzy set, which is analogous to probability reducing to determinism when unpredictability vanishes. Type1 fuzzy systems are working with a fixed membership function, while in type-2 fuzzy systems the membership function is fluctuating. A fuzzy set determines how input values are converted into fuzzy variables. == Overview == In order to symbolically distinguish between a type-1 fuzzy set and a type-2 fuzzy set, a tilde symbol is put over the symbol for the fuzzy set; so, A denotes a type-1 fuzzy set, whereas à denotes the comparable type-2 fuzzy set. When the latter is done, the resulting type-2 fuzzy set is called a "general type-2 fuzzy set" (to distinguish it from the special interval type-2 fuzzy set). Zadeh didn't stop with type-2 fuzzy sets, because in that 1976 paper he also generalized all of this to type-n fuzzy sets. The present article focuses only on type-2 fuzzy sets because they are the next step in the logical progression from type-1 to type-n fuzzy sets, where n = 1, 2, ... . Although some researchers are beginning to explore higher than type-2 fuzzy sets, as of early 2009, this work is in its infancy. The membership function of a general type-2 fuzzy set, Ã, is three-dimensional (Fig. 1), where the third dimension is the value of the membership function at each point on its two-dimensional domain that is called its "footprint of uncertainty"(FOU). For an interval type-2 fuzzy set that third-dimension value is the same (e.g., 1) everywhere, which means that no new information is contained in the third dimension of an interval type-2 fuzzy set. So, for such a set, the third dimension is ignored, and only the FOU is used to describe it. It is for this reason that an interval type-2 fuzzy set is sometimes called a first-order uncertainty fuzzy set model, whereas a general type-2 fuzzy set (with its useful third-dimension) is sometimes referred to as a second-order uncertainty fuzzy set model. The FOU represents the blurring of a type-1 membership function, and is completely described by its two bounding functions (Fig. 2), a lower membership function (LMF) and an upper membership function (UMF), both of which are type-1 fuzzy sets! Consequently, it is possible to use type-1 fuzzy set mathematics to characterize and work with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. This means that engineers and scientists who already know type-1 fuzzy sets will not have to invest a lot of time learning about general type-2 fuzzy set mathematics in order to understand and use interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Work on type-2 fuzzy sets languished during the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s, although a small number of articles were published about them. People were still trying to figure out what to do with type-1 fuzzy sets, so even though Zadeh proposed type-2 fuzzy sets in 1976, the time was not right for researchers to drop what they were doing with type-1 fuzzy sets to focus on type-2 fuzzy sets. This changed in the latter part of the 1990s as a result of Jerry Mendel and his student's works on type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. Since then, more researchers around the world are writing articles about type-2 fuzzy sets and systems. == Interval type-2 fuzzy sets == Interval type-2 fuzzy sets have received the most attention because the mathematics that is needed for such sets—primarily Interval arithmetic—is much simpler than the mathematics that is needed for general type-2 fuzzy sets. The literature about interval type-2 fuzzy sets is large, whereas the literature about general type-2 fuzzy sets is much smaller. Both kinds of fuzzy sets are being actively researched by an ever-growing number of researchers around the world and have resulted in successful employment in a variety of domains such as robot control. Formally, the following have already been worked out for interval type-2 fuzzy sets: Fuzzy set operations: union, intersection and complement Centroid (a very widely used operation by practitioners of such sets, and also an important uncertainty measure for them) Other uncertainty measures [fuzziness, cardinality, variance and skewness and uncertainty bounds Similarity Subsethood Embedded fuzzy sets Fuzzy set ranking Fuzzy rule ranking and selection Type-reduction methods Firing intervals for an interval type-2 fuzzy logic system Fuzzy weighted average Linguistic weighted average Synthesizing an FOU from data that are collected from a group of subject == Interval type-2 fuzzy logic systems == Type-2 fuzzy sets are finding very wide applicability in rule-based fuzzy logic systems (FLSs) because they let uncertainties be modeled by them whereas such uncertainties cannot be modeled by type-1 fuzzy sets. A block diagram of a type-2 FLS is depicted in Fig. 3. This kind of FLS is used in fuzzy logic control, fuzzy logic signal processing, rule-based classification, etc., and is sometimes referred to as a function approximation application of fuzzy sets, because the FLS is designed to minimize an error function. The following discussions, about the four components in Fig. 3 rule-based FLS, are given for an interval type-2 FLS, because to-date they are the most popular kind of type-2 FLS; however, most of the discussions are also applicable for a general type-2 FLS. Rules, that are either provided by subject experts or are extracted from numerical data, are expressed as a collection of IF-THEN statements, e.g., IF temperature is moderate and pressure is high, then rotate the valve a bit to the right. Fuzzy sets are associated with the terms that appear in the antecedents (IF-part) or consequents (THEN-part) of rules, and with the inputs to and the outputs of the FLS. Membership functions are used to describe these fuzzy sets, and in a type-1 FLS they are all type-1 fuzzy sets, whereas in an interval type-2 FLS at least one membership function is an interval type-2 fuzzy set. An interval type-2 FLS lets any one or all of the following kinds of uncertainties be quantified: Words that are used in antecedents and consequents of rules—because words can mean different things to different people. Uncertain consequents—because when rules are obtained from a group of experts, consequents will often be different for the same rule, i.e. the experts will not necessarily be in agreement. Membership function parameters—because when those parameters are optimized using uncertain (noisy) training data, the parameters become uncertain. Noisy measurements—because very often it is such measurements that activate the FLS. In Fig. 3, measured (crisp) inputs are first transformed into fuzzy sets in the Fuzzifier block because it is fuzzy sets and not numbers that activate the rules which are described in terms of fuzzy sets and not numbers. Three kinds of fuzzifiers are possible in an interval type-2 FLS. When measurements are: Perfect, they are modeled as a crisp set; Noisy, but the noise is stationary, they are modeled as a type-1 fuzzy set; and, Noisy, but the noise is non-stationary, they are modeled as an interval type-2 fuzzy set (this latter kind of fuzzification cannot be done in a type-1 FLS). In Fig. 3, after measurements are fuzzified, the resulting input fuzzy sets are mapped into fuzzy output sets by the Inference block. This is accomplished by first quantifying each rule using fuzzy set theory, and by then using the mathematics of fuzzy sets to establish the output of each rule, with the help of an inference mechanism. If there are M rules then the fuzzy input sets to the Inference block will activate only a subset of those rules, where the subset contains at least one rule and usually way fewer than M rules. The inference is done one rule at a time. So, at the output of the Inference block, there will be one or more fired-rule fuzzy output sets. In most engineering applications of an FLS, a number (and not a fuzzy set) is needed as its final output, e.g., the consequent of the rule given above is "Rotate the valve a bit to the right." No automatic valve will know what this means because "a bit to the right" is a linguistic expression, and a valv

  Read more →
• 

  Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge

  The Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge (MAGIC) is a 1.6 million dollar prize competition for autonomous mobile robots funded by TARDEC and the DSTO, the primary research organizations for Tank and Defense research in the United States and Australia respectively. The goal of the competition is to create multi-vehicle robotic teams that can execute an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance mission in a dynamic urban environment. The challenge required competitors to map a 500 m x 500 m challenge area in under 3.5 hours and to correctly locate, classify and recognise all simulated threats. The challenge event was conducted in Adelaide, Australia, during November 2010. == Competitors == Initially 12 teams were selected for the competition in November 2009, of which 10 teams received funding. These included: MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia (UWA, ECU, Flinders, Thales) Strategic Engineering – Adelaide, Australia (U. Adelaide) Northern Hunters – Canada (Royal Military College of Canada) Chiba Team – Japan (Chiba University) Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey (ASELSAN, Ohio State University) RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. (Robotics Research, LLC; QinetiQ; Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University) Team Cornell – US (Cornell University) Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. (University of Michigan) Virginia Tech – US (Virginia Tech) University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia (University of Pennsylvania) Numinence – Brisbane, Australia (Numinence Pty Ltd, La Trobe University) UNSW – Sydney, Australia (UNSW) The first downselection trial required teams to map an indoor area and outdoor area, and to demonstrate distributing and handing over tasks between robots. During the first downselection trial, the top six teams were selected: Cappadocia – Ankara, Turkey MAGICian – Adelaide/Perth, Australia RASR – Gaithersburg, Md. Team Michigan – Ann Arbor, Mich. University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia Chiba Team – Japan Before the finals were held, Chiba Team withdrew from the competition, leaving five competitors. == Event == Ultimately the overall goal of fully autonomous operations without human intervention was not achieved, however, the Secretary for Defence stated "The competing vehicles demonstrated new advances in robotics technology, which are very promising for their potential deployment in combat zones where they can replace our troops in carrying out life-threatening tasks" and considered the competition a success. == Results == The official results of the competition were: First – Team Michigan ($750,000 prize) Second – University of Pennsylvania ($250,000 prize) Third – RASR ($100,000 prize) Fourth – MAGICian & Cappadocia The "Old Ram Shed Challenge" was a single-day competition held after the completion of MAGIC. It was smaller in scale, allowing all of the teams to demonstrate their systems during a single day. The University of Pennsylvania won this challenge, having found a greater number of the target objects than the other teams. == Technology == Key technology used by all teams was computer vision, sensor fusion, human-robot interaction, and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Team Michigan, a collaboration between the University of Michigan's APRIL Lab and Soar Technology, Inc., had the largest fleet of 14 robots, developed their own Inertial Measurement Unit, and created their skid steer robot chassis out of Baltic birch plywood. Additionally, they had minimal reliance on GPS and used bandwidth limited 900 MHz radios for all telemetry, imaging, and status communications between all robots and the ground station. The code was written primarily in Java and each robot was equipped with an actuated 2D LIDAR, along with a unique 2D barcode for inter-robot recognition. The University of Pennsylvania team consisted of only four members. All code was written using Matlab. The robots were equipped with omnidirectional vision. RASR used the Foster-Miller TALON vehicle. MAGICian used the WAMbot robots developed by The University of Western Australia, Edith Cowan University and Thales Australia. Code was written in C++ and Java. The robots were equipped with SICK laser scanners. See the September/October 2012 special issue of the Journal of Field Robotics for contest highlights, technical approaches taken by several of the teams, and an explanation of the evaluation metrics used by organizers.

  Read more →