AI Video Generator Tools

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

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 Computer graphics, image processing and environmental data representation is a standardization subcommittee of the joint subcommittee ISO/IEC JTC 1 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which develops and facilitates standards within the field of computer graphics, image processing, and environmental data representation. The international secretariat of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 is the British Standards Institute (BSI) located in the United Kingdom. == History == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 was formed in 1987 from ISO/TC 97 as a result of Resolution 21 at the ISO/IEC JTC 1 plenary. The group's origins began in computer graphics, the standardization of which was originally under ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21/WG 2. However, when ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 was created, the standardization activity of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21/WG 2 was carried over to the new subcommittee. The initial five working groups of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 were titled, “Architecture,” “Application programming interfaces,” “Metafiles and interfaces,” “Language bindings,” and “Validation, testing and registration.” The work of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 began with the Graphical Kernel System (GKS), which was adopted from ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 21/WG 2. However, since GKS only addressed 2D functionality, attention turned to the standardization of 3D functionality. This resulted in two standards being published: GKS-3D in 1988 and PHIGS in 1989, both of which addressed 3D functionality. Since 1991, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 has held plenaries in a number of countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, United States, France, Canada, Japan, Sweden, Korea, United Kingdom, Australia, and Czech Republic. == Scope == The scope of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 is the “Standardization of interfaces for information technology based applications relating to”: Computer graphics Image processing Environmental data representation Support for the Mixed and Augmented Reality (MAR) Interaction with, and visual representation of, information Included are the following related areas: Modeling and simulation and related reference models Virtual reality with accompanying augmented reality/augmented virtuality aspects and related reference models Application program interfaces Functional specifications Representation models Interchange formats, encodings and their specifications, including metafiles Device interfaces Testing methods Registration procedures Presentation and support for creation of multimedia, hypermedia, and mixed reality documents Excluded are the following areas: Character and image coding Coding of multimedia, hypermedia, and mixed reality document interchange formats JTC 1 work in user system interfaces and document presentation ISO/TC 207 work on ISO 14000 environment management, ISO/TC 211 work on geographic information and geomatics Software environments as described by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 22 == Structure == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 is made up of four active working groups, each of which carries out specific tasks in standards development within the field of computer graphics, image processing and environmental data representation, together with ITU-T Study Group 16. As a response to changing standardization needs, working groups of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 can be disbanded if their area of work is no longer applicable, or established if new working areas arise. The focus of each working group is described in the group's terms of reference. Active working groups of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 are: == Collaborations == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 works in close collaboration with a number of other organizations or subcommittees, both internal and external to ISO or IEC, in order to avoid conflicting or duplicative work. Organizations internal to ISO or IEC that collaborate with or are in liaison to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 include: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 7, Sensor Networks ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, Coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 32, Data management and interchange ISO/TAG 14, Imagery and technology ISO/TC 130, Graphic Technology ISO/TC 184/SC 4, Industrial data ISO/TC 211, Geographic information/Geomatics ISO/TC 215, Health informatics IEC TC 100, Audio, video and multimedia system and equipment Some organizations external to ISO or IEC that collaborate with or are in liaison to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 include: Defence Geospatial Information Working Group (DGIWG) Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) The Khronos Group NATO - Joint Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance Capability Group (JISRCG) OMG Robotics DTF Open CGM Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) SEDRIS Organization Simulation Interoperability Standards Organization (SISO) US National Imagery Transmission Format Standard (NITFS) Technical Board (US NTB) Web3D Consortium World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) == Member countries == Countries pay a fee to ISO to be members of subcommittees. The 11 "P" (participating) members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 are: Australia, China, Egypt, France, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, Portugal, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and United States. The 22 "O" (observer) members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 are: Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Cuba, Czech Republic, Finland, Ghana, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Italy, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Thailand. == Published standards == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 24 currently has 80 published standards under their direct responsibility within the field of computer graphics, image processing, and environmental data representation, including:
Read more →
Emergent algorithm

An emergent algorithm is an algorithm that exhibits emergent behavior. In essence an emergent algorithm implements a set of simple building block behaviors that when combined exhibit more complex behaviors. One example of this is the implementation of fuzzy motion controllers used to adapt robot movement in response to environmental obstacles. An emergent algorithm has the following characteristics: it achieves predictable global effects it does not require global visibility it does not assume any kind of centralized control it is self-stabilizing Other examples of emergent algorithms and models include cellular automata, artificial neural networks and swarm intelligence systems (ant colony optimization, bees algorithm, etc.).
Read more →
Principle of rationality

The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.
Read more →
Hugging Face

Hugging Face, Inc., is an American company based in New York City that develops computation tools for building applications using machine learning. Its transformers library built for natural language processing applications and its platform allow users to share machine learning models and datasets and showcase their work. == History == === Founding === The company was founded in 2016 by French entrepreneurs Clément Delangue, Julien Chaumond, and Thomas Wolf in New York City, originally as a company that developed a chatbot app targeted at teenagers. The company was named after the U+1F917 🤗 HUGGING FACE emoji. After open sourcing the model behind the chatbot, the company pivoted to focus on being a platform for machine learning. === AI boom === On April 28, 2021, the company launched the BigScience Research Workshop in collaboration with several other research groups to release an open large language model. In 2022, the workshop concluded with the announcement of BLOOM, a multilingual large language model with 176 billion parameters. In February 2023, the company announced partnership with Amazon Web Services (AWS) which would allow Hugging Face's products to be available to AWS customers to use them as the building blocks for their custom applications. The company also said the next generation of BLOOM will be run on Trainium, a proprietary machine learning chip created by AWS. In June 2024, the company announced, along with Meta and Scaleway, their launch of a new AI accelerator program for European startups. The initiative aimed to help startups integrate open foundation models into their products, accelerating the EU AI ecosystem. The program, based at STATION F in Paris, ran from September 2024 to February 2025. Selected startups received mentoring, and access to AI models and tools and Scaleway's computing power. On September 23, 2024, to further the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, Hugging Face teamed up with Meta and UNESCO to launch a new online language translator. It was built on Meta's No Language Left Behind open-source AI model, enabling free text translation across 200 languages, including many low-resource languages. In April 2025, Hugging Face announced that they acquired a humanoid robotics startup, Pollen Robotics, based in France and founded by Matthieu Lapeyre and Pierre Rouanet in 2016. In an X tweet, Delangue shared his vision to "make Artificial Intelligence robotics Open Source". === Cyberattacks === In early 2026, hackers hijacked the Hugging Face platform to launch Android-targeted attacks involving "powerful malware" which could completely take over a compromised target.
Read more →
Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales

Anomaly Detection at Multiple Scales, or ADAMS was a $35 million DARPA project designed to identify patterns and anomalies in very large data sets. It is under DARPA's Information Innovation office and began in 2011 and ended in August 2014 The project was intended to detect and prevent insider threats such as "a soldier in good mental health becoming homicidal or suicidal", an "innocent insider becoming malicious", or "a government employee [who] abuses access privileges to share classified information". Specific cases mentioned are Nadal Malik Hasan and WikiLeaks source Chelsea Manning. Commercial applications may include finance. The intended recipients of the system output are operators in the counterintelligence agencies. A final report was published on May 11, 2015, detailing a system known as Anomaly Detection Engine for Networks, or ADEN, developed by the University of Maryland, College Park, whose goal was to "identify malicious users within a network." Using multiple datasets from Wikipedia, Slashdot, and others, researchers were able to identify vandals and malicious users on a website using both conventional algorithms and artificial intelligence. The Proactive Discovery of Insider Threats Using Graph Analysis and Learning was part of the ADAMS project. The Georgia Tech team includes noted high-performance computing researcher David Bader (computer scientist).
Read more →
Argumentation framework

In artificial intelligence and related fields, an argumentation framework is a way to deal with contentious information and draw conclusions from it using formalized arguments. In an abstract argumentation framework, entry-level information is a set of abstract arguments that, for instance, represent data or a proposition. Conflicts between arguments are represented by a binary relation on the set of arguments. In concrete terms, an argumentation framework is represented with a directed graph such that the nodes are the arguments, and the arrows represent the attack relation. There exist some extensions of the Dung's framework, like the logic-based argumentation frameworks or the value-based argumentation frameworks. == Abstract argumentation frameworks == === Formal framework === Abstract argumentation frameworks, also called argumentation frameworks à la Dung, are defined formally as a pair: A set of abstract elements called arguments, denoted A {\displaystyle A} A binary relation on A {\displaystyle A} , called attack relation, denoted R {\displaystyle R} For instance, the argumentation system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } with A = { a , b , c , d } {\displaystyle A=\{a,b,c,d\}} and R = { ( a , b ) , ( b , c ) , ( d , c ) } {\displaystyle R=\{(a,b),(b,c),(d,c)\}} contains four arguments ( a , b , c {\displaystyle a,b,c} and d {\displaystyle d} ) and three attacks ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , b {\displaystyle b} attacks c {\displaystyle c} and d {\displaystyle d} attacks c {\displaystyle c} ). Dung defines some notions : an argument a ∈ A {\displaystyle a\in A} is acceptable with respect to E ⊆ A {\displaystyle E\subseteq A} if and only if E {\displaystyle E} defends a {\displaystyle a} , that is ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , ∃ c ∈ E {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,\exists c\in E} such that ( c , b ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (c,b)\in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is conflict-free if there is no attack between its arguments, formally : ∀ a , b ∈ E , ( a , b ) ∉ R {\displaystyle \forall a,b\in E,(a,b)\not \in R} , a set of arguments E {\displaystyle E} is admissible if and only if it is conflict-free and all its arguments are acceptable with respect to E {\displaystyle E} . === Different semantics of acceptance === ==== Extensions ==== To decide if an argument can be accepted or not, or if several arguments can be accepted together, Dung defines several semantics of acceptance that allows, given an argumentation system, sets of arguments (called extensions) to be computed. For instance, given S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } , E {\displaystyle E} is a complete extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is an admissible set and every acceptable argument with respect to E {\displaystyle E} belongs to E {\displaystyle E} , E {\displaystyle E} is a preferred extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a maximal element (with respect to the set-theoretical inclusion) among the admissible sets with respect to S {\displaystyle S} , E {\displaystyle E} is a stable extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is a conflict-free set that attacks every argument that does not belong in E {\displaystyle E} (formally, ∀ a ∈ A ∖ E , ∃ b ∈ E {\displaystyle \forall a\in A\backslash E,\exists b\in E} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} , E {\displaystyle E} is the (unique) grounded extension of S {\displaystyle S} only if it is the smallest element (with respect to set inclusion) among the complete extensions of S {\displaystyle S} . There exists some inclusions between the sets of extensions built with these semantics : Every stable extension is preferred, Every preferred extension is complete, The grounded extension is complete, If the system is well-founded (there exists no infinite sequence a 0 , a 1 , … , a n , … {\displaystyle a_{0},a_{1},\dots ,a_{n},\dots } such that ∀ i > 0 , ( a i + 1 , a i ) ∈ R {\displaystyle \forall i>0,(a_{i+1},a_{i})\in R} ), all these semantics coincide—only one extension is grounded, stable, preferred, and complete. Some other semantics have been defined. One introduce the notation E x t σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)} to note the set of σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions of the system S {\displaystyle S} . In the case of the system S {\displaystyle S} in the figure above, E x t σ ( S ) = { { a , d } } {\displaystyle Ext_{\sigma }(S)=\{\{a,d\}\}} for every Dung's semantic—the system is well-founded. That explains why the semantics coincide, and the accepted arguments are: a {\displaystyle a} and d {\displaystyle d} . ==== Labellings ==== Labellings are a more expressive way than extensions to express the acceptance of the arguments. Concretely, a labelling is a mapping that associates every argument with a label in (the argument is accepted), out (the argument is rejected), or undec (the argument is undefined—not accepted or refused). One can also note a labelling as a set of pairs ( a r g u m e n t , l a b e l ) {\displaystyle ({\mathit {argument}},{\mathit {label}})} . Such a mapping does not make sense without additional constraint. The notion of reinstatement labelling guarantees the sense of the mapping. L {\displaystyle L} is a reinstatement labelling on the system S = ⟨ A , R ⟩ {\displaystyle S=\langle A,R\rangle } if and only if : ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = i n {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {in}}} if and only if ∀ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \forall b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R , L ( b ) = o u t {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R,L(b)={\mathit {out}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = o u t {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {out}}} if and only if ∃ b ∈ A {\displaystyle \exists b\in A} such that ( b , a ) ∈ R {\displaystyle (b,a)\in R} and L ( b ) = i n {\displaystyle L(b)={\mathit {in}}} ∀ a ∈ A , L ( a ) = u n d e c {\displaystyle \forall a\in A,L(a)={\mathit {undec}}} if and only if L ( a ) ≠ i n {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {in}}} and L ( a ) ≠ o u t {\displaystyle L(a)\neq {\mathit {out}}} One can convert every extension into a reinstatement labelling: the arguments of the extension are in, those attacked by an argument of the extension are out, and the others are undec. Conversely, one can build an extension from a reinstatement labelling just by keeping the arguments in. Indeed, Caminada proved that the reinstatement labellings and the complete extensions can be mapped in a bijective way. Moreover, the other Datung's semantics can be associated to some particular sets of reinstatement labellings. Reinstatement labellings distinguish arguments not accepted because they are attacked by accepted arguments from undefined arguments—that is, those that are not defended cannot defend themselves. An argument is undec if it is attacked by at least another undec. If it is attacked only by arguments out, it must be in, and if it is attacked some argument in, then it is out. The unique reinstatement labelling that corresponds to the system S {\displaystyle S} above is L = { ( a , i n ) , ( b , o u t ) , ( c , o u t ) , ( d , i n ) } {\displaystyle L=\{(a,{\mathit {in}}),(b,{\mathit {out}}),(c,{\mathit {out}}),(d,{\mathit {in}})\}} . === Inference from an argumentation system === In the general case when several extensions are computed for a given semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , the agent that reasons from the system can use several mechanisms to infer information: Credulous inference: the agent accepts an argument if it belongs to at least one of the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extensions—in which case, the agent risks accepting some arguments that are not acceptable together ( a {\displaystyle a} attacks b {\displaystyle b} , and a {\displaystyle a} and b {\displaystyle b} each belongs to an extension) Skeptical inference: the agent accepts an argument only if it belongs to every σ {\displaystyle \sigma } -extension. In this case, the agent risks deducing too little information (if the intersection of the extensions is empty or has a very small cardinal). For these two methods to infer information, one can identify the set of accepted arguments, respectively C r σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Cr_{\sigma }(S)} the set of the arguments credulously accepted under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } , and S c σ ( S ) {\displaystyle Sc_{\sigma }(S)} the set of arguments accepted skeptically under the semantic σ {\displaystyle \sigma } (the σ {\displaystyle \sigma } can be missed if there is no possible ambiguity about the semantic). Of course, when there is only one extension (for instance, when the system is well-founded), this problem is very simple: the agent accepts arguments of the unique extension and rejects others. The same reasoning can be done with labellings that correspond to the chosen semantic : an argument can be accepted if it is in for each labelling and refused if it is out for each labelling, the others being in an undecided state (the status of the arguments can remind the
Read more →
Space-based data center

Space-based data centers or orbital AI infrastructure are proposed concepts to build AI data centers in the sun-synchronous orbit or other orbits utilizing space-based solar power. Electric power has become the main bottleneck for terrestrial AI infrastructure. Space-based edge computing has historical roots in military architectures designed to bypass the latency of ground-based targeting networks. In the 1980s, the Strategic Defense Initiative's Brilliant Pebbles program first envisioned autonomous on-orbit data processing for missile defense. In 2019, the Space Development Agency (SDA) began to revive this decentralized approach through its Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA). This ambitious "sensor-to-shooter" infrastructure is treated as a prerequisite for the modern Golden Dome program, which would rely on space-based data processing to continuously track targets. == History == Early thinking about space-based computing infrastructure grew out of mid-20th-century visions for large orbital industrial systems, most notably proposals for space-based solar power, which were popularized in both technical literature and science writing by figures such as Isaac Asimov in the 1940s. These ideas emphasized exploiting the vacuum, continuous solar energy, and thermal characteristics of space to support power-intensive activities that would be difficult or inefficient on Earth. In the 21st century, advances in small satellites, reusable launch vehicles, and high-performance computing revived interest in space-based data centers, with governments and private companies exploring orbital or near-space platforms for edge computing, secure data handling, and low-latency processing of Earth-observation data. In September 2024, Y Combinator-backed Starcloud released a white paper detailing plans to build multiple gigawatts of AI compute in orbit. It was the first widely cited proposal to actually start building large orbital data centers. In 2025, Starcloud deployed an NVIDIA H100-class system and became the first company to train an LLM in space and run a version of Google Gemini in space. In March 2025, Lonestar deployed a data backup machine on the surface of the moon. In early January 2026, a team from the University of Pennsylvania presented a tether-based architecture for orbital data centers at the AIAA SciTech conference. The design relied on gravity gradient tension and solar-pressure-based passive attitude stabilization to minimize the mass of MW-scale orbital data centers. In January 2026, SpaceX filed plans with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for millions of satellites, leveraging reusable launches and Starlink integration to extend cloud and AI computing into orbit. Around the same time, Blue Origin announced the TeraWave constellation of about 5,400 satellites, designed to provide high‑throughput networking for data centers, enterprise, and government customers. Meanwhile, China announced a 200,000‑satellite constellation, focusing on state coordination, data sovereignty, and in-orbit processing for secure, time-critical applications. In February 2026, Starcloud submitted a proposal to the FCC for a constellation of up to 88,000 satellites for orbital data centers. In March, it announced intentions to be the first to mine Bitcoin in space, flying bitcoin mining ASICs on its second satellite, Starcloud-2. In May 2026, Edge Aerospace was awarded a contract by the European Space Agency under its Space Cloud program to study use cases, architectures and implementation roadmap for orbital data centers. == Feasibility == In October 2025, Nature Electronics published a study led by a research group at Nanyang Technological University on the development of carbon-neutral data centres in space. In November 2025, Google published a feasibility study on space-based data centers. The authors argued that if launch costs to low earth orbit reached US$200/kg, the launch cost for data center satellites could be cost effective relative to current energy costs for ground-based data centers. They project this may occur around 2035 if SpaceX's Starship project scales to 180 launches/year by then. == Advantages == Some sun-synchronous orbit (SSO) planes have constant sunlight in the dawn/dusk which could provide continuous solar energy. SSO is a limited resource and proper management and sharing of it is required. Solar irradiance is 36% higher in Earth orbit than on the surface No Earth weather storms or clouds, however more exposed to Solar storms. No property tax or land-use regulation. Saves space for other land use. Ample space for scalability. Won't strain the power grid. Direct access to power source without additional infrastructure. == Disadvantages == The deployment of space-based data centers raises several technical, economic, and environmental concerns. Existing launch costs are substantial and remains main cost of space infrastructure deployment Cooling is limited to heat dissipation through radiation only, which made in inefficient in comparison to convection in terrestrial data centers Space infrastructure must be designed to survive launch and to work under environment conditions of radiation, wide range of temperatures, in vacuum and in microgravity In-space assembly is on early development stage to enable deployment of mega-structures Megastructures are particularly exposed to orbital debris Solar arrays efficiency decrease 0.5% to 0.8% per year due to exposure of ultraviolet rays, space weather and orbital thermal cycles Hardware is designed for limited lifespan. Maintenance and repair in space (known as On-Orbit Servicing (OOS)) is still on early stage of practical implementation. Disposable data centre: technology obsolescence of AI data centre being a concern and difficult maintenance in space imply the single-use purpose of those space data centres. To extend lifetime, space infrastructure will require either refueling or orbit rasie by the servicer, which is going to increase its operational costs The environmental impact on Earth has its own challenges: The environmental impact of launches need to be addressed. Deployment consumes Earth resources that cannot be recovered or recycled. Computers require lots of resources, some of which are strategic. Recycling e-waste is already a challenge on Earth and extremely unlikely in space. Space debris (orbit pollution) is another sustainability challenge for space: Orbits are, like any resources, a limited physical and electromagnetic resource and available for all mankind. The accumulation of satellites on a particular orbit reduces the use of space for other purposes. A consequence of the increase of satellite in orbit is a higher risk of the runaway of space debris (see Kessler syndrome). This means some orbits could become unusable. Latency and bandwidth are constrained in space, and consumes limited electromagnetic resources. Satellite flares could inhibit ground-based and space-based observational astronomy. == Size and power generated == It would take ~1 square mile solar array in earth orbit to produce 1 gigawatt of power at 30% cell efficiency. == Companies pursuing space-based AI infrastructure == Blue Origin Cowboy Space Corporation (formerly Aetherflux) Edge Aerospace Google – Project Suncatcher Nvidia OpenAI SpaceX Starcloud
Read more →
Organoid intelligence

Organoid intelligence (OI) is an emerging field of study in computer science and biology that develops and studies biological wetware computing using 3D cultures of human brain cells (or brain organoids) and brain-machine interface technologies. Such technologies may be referred to as OIs or the nervous filesystem. Organoid intelligent computer systems can be an example of biohybrid systems. == Differences with non-organic computing == As opposed to traditional non-organic silicon-based approaches, OI seeks to use lab-grown cerebral organoids to serve as "biological hardware". While these structures are still far from being able to think like a regular human brain and do not yet possess strong computing capabilities, OI research currently offers the potential to improve the understanding of brain development, learning and memory, potentially finding treatments for neurological disorders such as dementia. Thomas Hartung, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, argued in 2023 that "while silicon-based computers are certainly better with numbers, brains are better at learning." He noted that transistor density in computer chip may be approaching its limits, whereas brains, being wired differently, are more energy-efficient and can store large amounts of information. Some researchers claim that even though human brains are slower than machines at processing simple information, they are far better at processing complex information as brains can deal with fewer and more uncertain data, perform both sequential and parallel processing, being highly heterogenous, use incomplete datasets, and is said to outperform non-organic machines in decision-making. Training OIs involve the process of biological learning (BL) as opposed to machine learning (ML) for AIs. == Bioinformatics in OI == OI generates complex biological data, necessitating sophisticated methods for processing and analysis. Bioinformatics provides the tools and techniques to decipher raw data, uncovering the patterns and insights. Researchers have developed a platform named Neuroplatform for experimenting remotely with brain organoids via an API. == Intended functions == Brain-inspired computing hardware aims to emulate the structure and working principles of the brain and could be used to address current limitations in AI technologies. However, brain-inspired silicon chips are still limited in their ability to fully mimic brain function, as most examples are built on digital electronic principles. One study performed OI computation (which they termed Brainoware) by sending and receiving information from the brain organoid using a high-density multielectrode array. By applying spatiotemporal electrical stimulation, nonlinear dynamics, and fading memory properties, as well as unsupervised learning from training data by reshaping the organoid functional connectivity, the study showed the potential of this technology by using it for speech recognition and nonlinear equation prediction in a reservoir computing framework. == Ethical concerns == While researchers are hoping to use OI and biological computing to complement traditional silicon-based computing, there are also questions about the ethics of such an approach. Concerns include the possibility that an organoid could develop sentience or consciousness, and the question of the relationship between a stem cell donor (for growing the organoid) and the respective OI system.
Read more →
Colloquis

Colloquis, previously known as ActiveBuddy and Conversagent, was a company that created conversation-based interactive agents originally distributed via instant messaging platforms. The company had offices in New York, New York, and Sunnyvale, California. == History == Founded in 2000, the company was the brainchild of Robert Hoffer, Timothy Kay, and Peter Levitan. The idea for interactive agents (also known as Internet bots) came from the team's vision to add functionality to increasingly popular instant messaging services. The original implementation took shape as a word-based adventure game but quickly grew to include a wide range of database applications, including access to news, weather, stock information, movie times, Yellow Pages listings, and detailed sports data, as well as a variety of tools (calculators, translator, etc.). These various applications were bundled into one entity and launched as SmarterChild in 2001. SmarterChild acted as a showcase for the quick data access and possibilities for fun conversation that the company planned to turn into customized, niche-specific products. The rapid success of SmarterChild led to targeted promotional products for Radiohead, Austin Powers, The Sporting News, and others. ActiveBuddy sought to strengthen its hold on the interactive agent market for the future by filing for, and receiving, a controversial patent on their creation in 2002. The company also released the BuddyScript SDK, a free developer kit that allow programmers to design and launch their own interactive agents using ActiveBuddy's proprietary scripting language, in 2002. Ultimately, however, the decline in ad spending in 2001 and 2002 led to a shift in corporate strategy towards business focused Automated Service Agents, building products for clients including Cingular, Comcast and Cox Communications. The company subsequently changed its name from ActiveBuddy to Conversagent in 2003, and then again to Colloquis in 2006. Colloquis was purchased by Microsoft in October 2006.
Read more →
Action model learning

Action model learning (sometimes abbreviated action learning) is an area of machine learning concerned with the creation and modification of a software agent's knowledge about the effects and preconditions of the actions that can be executed within its environment. This knowledge is usually represented in a logic-based action description language and used as input for automated planners. Learning action models is important when goals change. When an agent acted for a while, it can use its accumulated knowledge about actions in the domain to make better decisions. Thus, learning action models differs from reinforcement learning. It enables reasoning about actions instead of expensive trials in the world. Action model learning is a form of inductive reasoning, where new knowledge is generated based on the agent's observations. The usual motivation for action model learning is the fact that manual specification of action models for planners is often a difficult, time-consuming, and error-prone task (especially in complex environments). == Action models == Given a training set E {\displaystyle E} consisting of examples e = ( s , a , s ′ ) {\displaystyle e=(s,a,s')} , where s , s ′ {\displaystyle s,s'} are observations of a world state from two consecutive time steps t , t ′ {\displaystyle t,t'} and a {\displaystyle a} is an action instance observed in time step t {\displaystyle t} , the goal of action model learning in general is to construct an action model ⟨ D , P ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle D,P\rangle } , where D {\displaystyle D} is a description of domain dynamics in action description formalism like STRIPS, ADL or PDDL and P {\displaystyle P} is a probability function defined over the elements of D {\displaystyle D} . However, many state of the art action learning methods assume determinism and do not induce P {\displaystyle P} . In addition to determinism, individual methods differ in how they deal with other attributes of domain (e.g. partial observability or sensoric noise). == Action learning methods == === State of the art === Recent action learning methods take various approaches and employ a wide variety of tools from different areas of artificial intelligence and computational logic. As an example of a method based on propositional logic, we can mention SLAF (Simultaneous Learning and Filtering) algorithm, which uses agent's observations to construct a long propositional formula over time and subsequently interprets it using a satisfiability (SAT) solver. Another technique, in which learning is converted into a satisfiability problem (weighted MAX-SAT in this case) and SAT solvers are used, is implemented in ARMS (Action-Relation Modeling System). Two mutually similar, fully declarative approaches to action learning were based on logic programming paradigm Answer Set Programming (ASP) and its extension, Reactive ASP. In another example, bottom-up inductive logic programming approach was employed. Several different solutions are not directly logic-based. For example, the action model learning using a perceptron algorithm or the multi level greedy search over the space of possible action models. In the older paper from 1992, the action model learning was studied as an extension of reinforcement learning. Nonetheless, further algorithms can be found that operate under different assumptions: FAMA can work even when some observations are missing, and it produces a general (lifted) planning model. It treats learning an action model like a planning problem, making sure the learned model matches the observations given. NOLAM can learn general action models even from noisy or imperfect data. LOCM focuses only on the order of actions in the data, ignoring any details about the states between those actions. The family of safe action model (SAM) learning methods create models that guarantee any plans made with them will actually work in the real world. There's also an extension called N-SAM that can learn action models with numeric conditions and effects. Additionally, numeric action models like N-SAM can be used to improve reinforcement learning (RL) performance through the RAMP algorithm. === Literature === Most action learning research papers are published in journals and conferences focused on artificial intelligence in general (e.g. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR), Artificial Intelligence, Applied Artificial Intelligence (AAI) or AAAI conferences). Despite mutual relevance of the topics, action model learning is usually not addressed in planning conferences like the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS).
Read more →
A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity

"A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity" is a 1943 paper written by Warren Sturgis McCulloch and Walter Pitts, published in the journal The Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics. The paper proposed a mathematical model of the nervous system as a network of simple logical elements, later known as artificial neurons, or McCulloch–Pitts neurons. These neurons receive inputs, perform a weighted sum, and fire an output signal based on a threshold function. By connecting these units in various configurations, McCulloch and Pitts demonstrated that their model could perform all logical functions. It is a seminal work in cognitive science, computational neuroscience, computer science, and artificial intelligence. It was a foundational result in automata theory. John von Neumann cited it as a significant result. == Mathematics == The artificial neuron used in the original paper is slightly different from the modern version. They considered neural networks that operate in discrete steps of time t = 0 , 1 , … {\displaystyle t=0,1,\dots } . The neural network contains a number of neurons. Let the state of a neuron i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} be N i ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{i}(t)} . The state of a neuron can either be 0 or 1, standing for "not firing" and "firing". Each neuron also has a firing threshold θ {\displaystyle \theta } , such that it fires if the total input exceeds the threshold. Each neuron can connect to any other neuron (including itself) with positive synapses (excitatory) or negative synapses (inhibitory). That is, each neuron can connect to another neuron with a weight w {\displaystyle w} taking an integer value. A peripheral afferent is a neuron with no incoming synapses. We can regard each neural network as a directed graph, with the nodes being the neurons, and the directed edges being the synapses. A neural network has a circle or a circuit if there exists a directed circle in the graph. Let w i j ( t ) {\displaystyle w_{ij}(t)} be the connection weight from neuron j {\displaystyle j} to neuron i {\displaystyle i} at time t {\displaystyle t} , then its next state is N i ( t + 1 ) = H ( ∑ j = 1 n w i j ( t ) N j ( t ) − θ i ( t ) ) , {\displaystyle N_{i}(t+1)=H\left(\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{ij}(t)N_{j}(t)-\theta _{i}(t)\right),} where H {\displaystyle H} is the Heaviside step function (outputting 1 if the input is greater than or equal to 0, and 0 otherwise). === Symbolic logic === The paper used, as a logical language for describing neural networks, "Language II" from The Logical Syntax of Language by Rudolf Carnap with some notations taken from Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell. Language II covers substantial parts of classical mathematics, including real analysis and portions of set theory. To describe a neural network with peripheral afferents N 1 , N 2 , … , N p {\displaystyle N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{p}} and non-peripheral afferents N p + 1 , N p + 2 , … , N n {\displaystyle N_{p+1},N_{p+2},\dots ,N_{n}} they considered logical predicate of form P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N p , t ) {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{p},t)} where P r {\displaystyle Pr} is a first-order logic predicate function (a function that outputs a boolean), N 1 , … , N p {\displaystyle N_{1},\dots ,N_{p}} are predicates that take t {\displaystyle t} as an argument, and t {\displaystyle t} is the only free variable in the predicate. Intuitively speaking, N 1 , … , N p {\displaystyle N_{1},\dots ,N_{p}} specifies the binary input patterns going into the neural network over all time, and P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , t ) {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},t)} is a function that takes some binary input patterns, and constructs an output binary pattern P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , 0 ) , P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , 1 ) , … {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},0),Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},1),\dots } . A logical sentence P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N n , t ) {\displaystyle Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{n},t)} is realized by a neural network iff there exists a time-delay T ≥ 0 {\displaystyle T\geq 0} , a neuron i {\displaystyle i} in the network, and an initial state for the non-peripheral neurons N p + 1 ( 0 ) , … , N n ( 0 ) {\displaystyle N_{p+1}(0),\dots ,N_{n}(0)} , such that for any time t {\displaystyle t} , the truth-value of the logical sentence is equal to the state of the neuron i {\displaystyle i} at time t + T {\displaystyle t+T} . That is, ∀ t = 0 , 1 , 2 , … , P r ( N 1 , N 2 , … , N p , t ) = N i ( t + T ) {\displaystyle \forall t=0,1,2,\dots ,\quad Pr(N_{1},N_{2},\dots ,N_{p},t)=N_{i}(t+T)} === Equivalence === In the paper, they considered some alternative definitions of artificial neural networks, and have shown them to be equivalent, that is, neural networks under one definition realizes precisely the same logical sentences as neural networks under another definition. They considered three forms of inhibition: relative inhibition, absolute inhibition, and extinction. The definition above is relative inhibition. By "absolute inhibition" they meant that if any negative synapse fires, then the neuron will not fire. By "extinction" they meant that if at time t {\displaystyle t} , any inhibitory synapse fires on a neuron i {\displaystyle i} , then θ i ( t + j ) = θ i ( 0 ) + b j {\displaystyle \theta _{i}(t+j)=\theta _{i}(0)+b_{j}} for j = 1 , 2 , 3 , … {\displaystyle j=1,2,3,\dots } , until the next time an inhibitory synapse fires on i {\displaystyle i} . It is required that b j = 0 {\displaystyle b_{j}=0} for all large j {\displaystyle j} . Theorem 4 and 5 state that these are equivalent. They considered three forms of excitation: spatial summation, temporal summation, and facilitation. The definition above is spatial summation (which they pictured as having multiple synapses placed close together, so that the effect of their firing sums up). By "temporal summation" they meant that the total incoming signal is ∑ τ = 0 T ∑ j = 1 n w i j ( t ) N j ( t − τ ) {\displaystyle \sum _{\tau =0}^{T}\sum _{j=1}^{n}w_{ij}(t)N_{j}(t-\tau )} for some T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} . By "facilitation" they meant the same as extinction, except that b j ≤ 0 {\displaystyle b_{j}\leq 0} . Theorem 6 states that these are equivalent. They considered neural networks that do not change, and those that change by Hebbian learning. That is, they assume that at t = 0 {\displaystyle t=0} , some excitatory synaptic connections are not active. If at any t {\displaystyle t} , both N i ( t ) = 1 , N j ( t ) = 1 {\displaystyle N_{i}(t)=1,N_{j}(t)=1} , then any latent excitatory synapse between i , j {\displaystyle i,j} becomes active. Theorem 7 states that these are equivalent. === Logical expressivity === They considered "temporal propositional expressions" (TPE), which are propositional formulas with one free variable t {\displaystyle t} . For example, N 1 ( t ) ∨ N 2 ( t ) ∧ ¬ N 3 ( t ) {\displaystyle N_{1}(t)\vee N_{2}(t)\wedge \neg N_{3}(t)} is such an expression. Theorem 1 and 2 together showed that neural nets without circles are equivalent to TPE. For neural nets with loops, they noted that "realizable P r {\displaystyle Pr} may involve reference to past events of an indefinite degree of remoteness". These then encodes for sentences like "There was some x such that x was a ψ" or ( ∃ x ) ( ψ x ) {\displaystyle (\exists x)(\psi x)} . Theorems 8 to 10 showed that neural nets with loops can encode all first-order logic with equality and conversely, any looped neural networks is equivalent to a sentence in first-order logic with equality, thus showing that they are equivalent in logical expressiveness. As a remark, they noted that a neural network, if furnished with a tape, scanners, and write-heads, is equivalent to a Turing machine, and conversely, every Turing machine is equivalent to some such neural network. Thus, these neural networks are equivalent to Turing computability and Church's lambda-definability. == Context == === Previous work === The paper built upon several previous strands of work. In the symbolic logic side, it built on the previous work by Carnap, Whitehead, and Russell. This was contributed by Walter Pitts, who had a strong proficiency with symbolic logic. Pitts provided mathematical and logical rigor to McCulloch’s vague ideas on psychons (atoms of psychological events) and circular causality. In the neuroscience side, it built on previous work by the mathematical biology research group centered around Nicolas Rashevsky, of which McCulloch was a member. The paper was published in the Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, which was founded by Rashevsky in 1939. During the late 1930s, Rashevsky's research group was producing papers that had difficulty publishing in other journals at the time, so Rashevsky decided to found a new journal exclusively devoted to mathematical biophysics. Also in the Rashevsky's group was Alston Scott Householder, who in 1941 published an abstract model
Read more →
Structured sparsity regularization

Structured sparsity regularization is a class of methods, and an area of research in statistical learning theory, that extend and generalize sparsity regularization learning methods. Both sparsity and structured sparsity regularization methods seek to exploit the assumption that the output variable Y {\displaystyle Y} (i.e., response, or dependent variable) to be learned can be described by a reduced number of variables in the input space X {\displaystyle X} (i.e., the domain, space of features or explanatory variables). Sparsity regularization methods focus on selecting the input variables that best describe the output. Structured sparsity regularization methods generalize and extend sparsity regularization methods, by allowing for optimal selection over structures like groups or networks of input variables in X {\displaystyle X} . Common motivation for the use of structured sparsity methods are model interpretability, high-dimensional learning (where dimensionality of X {\displaystyle X} may be higher than the number of observations n {\displaystyle n} ), and reduction of computational complexity. Moreover, structured sparsity methods allow to incorporate prior assumptions on the structure of the input variables, such as overlapping groups, non-overlapping groups, and acyclic graphs. Examples of uses of structured sparsity methods include face recognition, magnetic resonance image (MRI) processing, socio-linguistic analysis in natural language processing, and analysis of genetic expression in breast cancer. == Definition and related concepts == === Sparsity regularization === Consider the linear kernel regularized empirical risk minimization problem with a loss function V ( y i , f ( x ) ) {\displaystyle V(y_{i},f(x))} and the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm" as the regularization penalty: min w ∈ R d 1 n ∑ i = 1 n V ( y i , ⟨ w , x i ⟩ ) + λ ‖ w ‖ 0 , {\displaystyle \min _{w\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}}{\frac {1}{n}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}V(y_{i},\langle w,x_{i}\rangle )+\lambda \|w\|_{0},} where x , w ∈ R d {\displaystyle x,w\in \mathbb {R^{d}} } , and ‖ w ‖ 0 {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}} denotes the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell _{0}} "norm", defined as the number of nonzero entries of the vector w {\displaystyle w} . f ( x ) = ⟨ w , x i ⟩ {\displaystyle f(x)=\langle w,x_{i}\rangle } is said to be sparse if ‖ w ‖ 0 = s < d {\displaystyle \|w\|_{0}=s 0 {\displaystyle w_{j}>0} . However, as in this case groups may overlap, we take the intersection of the complements of those groups that are not set to zero. This intersection of complements selection criteria implies the modeling choice that we allow some coefficients within a particular group g {\displaystyle g} to be set to zero, while others within the same group g {\displaystyle g} may remain positive. In other words, coefficients within a group may differ depending on the several group memberships that each variable within the group may have. ==== Union of groups: latent group Lasso ==== A different approach is to consider union of groups for variable selection. This approach captures the modeling situation where variables can be selected as long as they belong at least to one group with positive coefficients. This modeling perspective implies that we want to preserve group structure. The formulation of the union of groups approach is also referred to as latent group Lasso, and requires to modify the group ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell _{2}} norm considered above and introduce the following regularizer R ( w ) = i n f { ∑ g ‖ w g ‖ g : w = ∑ g = 1 G w ¯ g } {\displaystyle R(w)=inf\left\{\sum _{g}\|w_{g}\|_{g}:w=\sum _{g=1}^{G}{\bar {w}}_{g}\right\}} where w ∈ R d {\displaystyle w\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} , w g ∈ G g {\displaystyle w_{g}\in G_{g}} is the vector of coefficients of group g, and w ¯ g ∈ R d {\displaystyle {\bar {w}}_{g}\in {\mathbb {R^{d}} }} is a vector with coefficients w g j {\displaystyle w_{g}^{j}} for all variables j {
Read more →
No Thanks (app)

No Thanks is a Palestinian boycott-awareness mobile application developed by Palestinian software engineer Ahmed Bashbash, created to assist consumers in identifying and boycotting products associated with companies linked to Israel. Launched in 13 November 2023, the app gained significant attention amid the Gaza–Israel conflict. == History == No Thanks is a mobile application developed by Ahmed Bashbash, a Palestinian software engineer from Gaza residing in Hungary. The app was conceived in October 2023 following the death of Bashbash's brother in an Israeli airstrike on October 31, 2023. His sister had previously died in 2020 due to delayed medical treatment. The app was officially launched on November 13, 2023, and quickly gained traction, got over 100,000 downloads within its first month of release. On November 30, 2023, Google removed the app from its Play Store due to a violation of its content policies. The app's home page included a description: "Welcome to No Thanks, here you can see if the product in your hand supports killing children in Palestine or not," which was deemed to contravene Google's guidelines on hate speech and sensitive content. On December 3, 2023, following changes to the app's description, Google reinstated the app.
Read more →
Robot learning

Robot learning is a research field at the intersection of machine learning and robotics. It studies techniques allowing a robot to acquire novel skills or adapt to its environment through learning algorithms. The embodiment of the robot, situated in a physical embedding, provides at the same time specific difficulties (e.g. high-dimensionality, real time constraints for collecting data and learning) and opportunities for guiding the learning process (e.g. sensorimotor synergies, motor primitives). Example of skills that are targeted by learning algorithms include sensorimotor skills such as locomotion, grasping, active object categorization, as well as interactive skills such as joint manipulation of an object with a human peer, and linguistic skills such as the grounded and situated meaning of human language. Learning can happen either through autonomous self-exploration or through guidance from a human teacher, like for example in robot learning by imitation. Robot learning can be closely related to adaptive control, reinforcement learning as well as developmental robotics which considers the problem of autonomous lifelong acquisition of repertoires of skills. While machine learning is frequently used by computer vision algorithms employed in the context of robotics, these applications are usually not referred to as "robot learning". == Imitation learning == Many research groups are developing techniques where robots learn by imitating. This includes various techniques for learning from demonstration (sometimes also referred to as "programming by demonstration") and observational learning. == Sharing learned skills and knowledge == In Tellex's "Million Object Challenge", the goal is robots that learn how to spot and handle simple items and upload their data to the cloud to allow other robots to analyze and use the information. RoboBrain is a knowledge engine for robots which can be freely accessed by any device wishing to carry out a task. The database gathers new information about tasks as robots perform them, by searching the Internet, interpreting natural language text, images, and videos, object recognition as well as interaction. The project is led by Ashutosh Saxena at Stanford University. RoboEarth is a project that has been described as a "World Wide Web for robots" − it is a network and database repository where robots can share information and learn from each other and a cloud for outsourcing heavy computation tasks. The project brings together researchers from five major universities in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain and is backed by the European Union. Google Research, DeepMind, and Google X have decided to allow their robots share their experiences. == Vision-language-action model == Research groups and companies are developing vision-language-action models, foundation models that allow robotic control through the combination of vision and language. Google DeepMind, Figure AI and Hugging Face are actively working on that.
Read more →
Enterprise cognitive system

Enterprise cognitive systems (ECS) are part of a broader shift in computing, from a programmatic to a probabilistic approach, called cognitive computing. An Enterprise Cognitive System makes a new class of complex decision support problems computable, where the business context is ambiguous, multi-faceted, and fast-evolving, and what to do in such a situation is usually assessed today by the business user. An ECS is designed to synthesize a business context and link it to the desired outcome. It recommends evidence-based actions to help the end-user achieve the desired outcome. It does so by finding past situations similar to the current situation, and extracting the repeated actions that best influence the desired outcome. While general-purpose cognitive systems can be used for different outputs, prescriptive, suggestive, instructive, or simply entertaining, an enterprise cognitive system is focused on action, not insight, to help in assessing what to do in a complex situation. == Key characteristics == ECS have to be: Adaptive: They must learn as information changes, and as goals and requirements evolve. They must resolve ambiguity and tolerate unpredictability. They must be engineered to feed on dynamic data in real time, or near real time. In the Enterprise, near-real time learning from data requires an agile information federation approach to ingest incremental data updates as they occur, and an unsupervised learning approach to ensure that new best practice is leveraged across the organization in a timely manner. Interactive: They must interact easily with users so that those users can define their needs comfortably. They may also interact with other processors, devices, and Cloud services, as well as with people. In the Enterprise, interactions are controlled via existing workflows and UIs. Therefore, embedding best practices directly into these existing interfaces, in the context of a specific step, is critical to ensure maximum end-user adoption. Iterative and stateful: They must aid in defining a problem by asking questions or finding additional source input if a problem statement is ambiguous or incomplete. They must “remember” previous interactions in a process and return information that is suitable for the specific application at that point in time. In the Enterprise, business context is often structured by a business process, and therefore sufficiently data-rich to make relevant recommendations without significant iterations from the end-user. A stateful memory of overall interactions across communication channels is critical for understanding of context, as a static profile will not capture intent and outcome potential the way behavior does. Contextual: They must understand, identify, and extract contextual elements such as meaning, syntax, time, location, appropriate domain, regulations, user's profile, process, task and goal. They may draw on multiple sources of information, including both structured and unstructured digital information, as well as sensory inputs (visual, gestural, auditory, or sensor-provided). In the Enterprise, Context is fragmented and must be aggregated across data types, sources, and locations. In most business environments, such data is captured in existing enterprise information systems, and the effort is linked to quickly source and unify such information. It is rare to have to directly process sensor, audio or visual data in real-time as direct input into the enterprise cognitive system. Instead, these data types are captured by Enterprise Applications and pre-processed into a binary or text format prior to consumption by the System. == Business applications powered by an ECS == Bottlenose – trends and brands monitoring Cybereason – security threat monitoring Dataminr – social media monitoring
Read more →