Ofer Dekel (Hebrew: עופר דקל) is a computer science researcher in the Machine Learning Department of Microsoft Research. He obtained his PhD in computer science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is an affiliate faculty at the Computer Science & Engineering department at the University of Washington. == Areas of research == Dekel's research topics include machine learning, online prediction, statistical learning theory, and stochastic optimization. He is currently engaged in the application of machine learning techniques in the development of the Bing search engine.
Clips (software)
Clips is a discontinued mobile video editing software application created by Apple Inc. It was released onto the iOS App Store on April 6, 2017, for free. Initially, it was only available on 64-bit devices running iOS 10.3 or later; as of version 3.1.3, it requires iOS 16.0 or later. Apple describes it as an app for "making and sharing fun videos with text, effects, graphics, and more.". Its final release was on May 9, 2024 before was removed from the App Store on October 10, 2025. == Features == After launching of the app, the user sees the view of the front-facing camera. The app allows the user to create a new clip by tapping on a red record button, or use photos or videos from the device's photo library. Once a clip is recorded, it can be added to a project timeline shown at the bottom of the screen. The user can share their project on social media platforms. The user can also add filters and effects to the project. "Live Titles" (available in several styles) can also be created by dictating to the device.
Resistance Database Initiative
HIV Resistance Response Database Initiative (RDI) was formed in 2002 to use artificial intelligence (AI) to predict how patients will respond to HIV drugs using data from more 250,000 patients from around 50 countries around the world. The RDI used its models to power its HIV Treatment Response Prediction System (HIV-TRePS). Launched in 2010, this free online tool enabled healthcare professionals to upload their patient’s data and obtain highly accurate predictions of how they would respond to different combinations of the 30 or more drugs available. The tool enabled physicians to individualize their patients’ treatment, using these predictions based on more than a million patient-years of treatment experience. HIV-TRePS was possibly the first ever AI-based system for medical decision-making to be developed, successfully tested, and used in clinical practice. It has since been used by thousands of healthcare professionals to optimise the treatment of tens of thousands of patients. Since the RDI’s inception the treatment of HIV infection has progressed enormously, with more effective and better tolerated drugs available in ever more convenient combination formulations. In most countries HIV is now considered a chronic, manageable condition. Moreover, the success of the drugs in reducing the amount of virus is substantially reducing the onward transmission of the virus and cases of new infections are falling in many settings. This improvement in HIV treatment means the need for sophisticated AI to support HIV treatment decisions has significantly reduced. In response, the RDI ceased development of further models and, in March 2024, withdrew its HIV-TRePS system. == Background == Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), a condition in which the immune system begins to fail, leading to life-threatening opportunistic infections. There are approximately 30 HIV antiretroviral drugs that have been approved for the treatment of HIV infection, from six different classes, based on the point in the HIV life-cycle at which they act. They are used in combination; typically 3 or more drugs from 2 or more different classes, a form of therapy known as highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The aim of therapy is to suppress the virus to very low, ideally undetectable, levels in the blood. This prevents the virus from depleting the immune cells that it preferentially attacks CD4 cells and prevents or delays illness and death. Despite the expanding availability of these drugs and the impact of their use, treatments continue to fail, often involving to the development of resistance. During drug therapy, low-level virus replication may still occur, particularly when a patient misses a dose. HIV makes errors in copying its genetic material and, if a mutation makes the virus resistant to one or more of the drugs in the patient's treatment, it may begin to replicate more successfully in the presence of that drug and undermine the effect of the treatment. If this happens, the treatment needs to be changed to re-establish control over the virus. == RDI's Approach == The RDI’s approach was to use artificial intelligence (including neural network and random forest models), trained with data from hundreds of thousands of patients, treated with different drugs in a variety of clinical settings all over the world, to predict how an individual patient will respond to any new combination of HIV drugs. The models were tested with independent data sets and consistently achieved accuracy of approximately 80%.
Estimation of distribution algorithm
Estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs), sometimes called probabilistic model-building genetic algorithms (PMBGAs), are stochastic optimization methods that guide the search for the optimum by building and sampling explicit probabilistic models of promising candidate solutions. Optimization is viewed as a series of incremental updates of a probabilistic model, starting with the model encoding an uninformative prior over admissible solutions and ending with the model that generates only the global optima. EDAs belong to the class of evolutionary algorithms. The main difference between EDAs and most conventional evolutionary algorithms is that evolutionary algorithms generate new candidate solutions using an implicit distribution defined by one or more variation operators, whereas EDAs use an explicit probability distribution encoded by a Bayesian network, a multivariate normal distribution, or another model class. Similarly as other evolutionary algorithms, EDAs can be used to solve optimization problems defined over a number of representations from vectors to LISP style S expressions, and the quality of candidate solutions is often evaluated using one or more objective functions. The general procedure of an EDA is outlined in the following: t := 0 initialize model M(0) to represent uniform distribution over admissible solutions while (termination criteria not met) do P := generate N>0 candidate solutions by sampling M(t) F := evaluate all candidate solutions in P M(t + 1) := adjust_model(P, F, M(t)) t := t + 1 Using explicit probabilistic models in optimization allowed EDAs to feasibly solve optimization problems that were notoriously difficult for most conventional evolutionary algorithms and traditional optimization techniques, such as problems with high levels of epistasis. Nonetheless, the advantage of EDAs is also that these algorithms provide an optimization practitioner with a series of probabilistic models that reveal a lot of information about the problem being solved. This information can in turn be used to design problem-specific neighborhood operators for local search, to bias future runs of EDAs on a similar problem, or to create an efficient computational model of the problem. For example, if the population is represented by bit strings of length 4, the EDA can represent the population of promising solution using a single vector of four probabilities (p1, p2, p3, p4) where each component of p defines the probability of that position being a 1. Using this probability vector it is possible to create an arbitrary number of candidate solutions. == Estimation of distribution algorithms (EDAs) == This section describes the models built by some well known EDAs of different levels of complexity. It is always assumed a population P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} at the generation t {\displaystyle t} , a selection operator S {\displaystyle S} , a model-building operator α {\displaystyle \alpha } and a sampling operator β {\displaystyle \beta } . == Univariate factorizations == The most simple EDAs assume that decision variables are independent, i.e. p ( X 1 , X 2 ) = p ( X 1 ) ⋅ p ( X 2 ) {\displaystyle p(X_{1},X_{2})=p(X_{1})\cdot p(X_{2})} . Therefore, univariate EDAs rely only on univariate statistics and multivariate distributions must be factorized as the product of N {\displaystyle N} univariate probability distributions, D Univariate := p ( X 1 , … , X N ) = ∏ i = 1 N p ( X i ) . {\displaystyle D_{\text{Univariate}}:=p(X_{1},\dots ,X_{N})=\prod _{i=1}^{N}p(X_{i}).} Such factorizations are used in many different EDAs, next we describe some of them. === Univariate marginal distribution algorithm (UMDA) === The UMDA is a simple EDA that uses an operator α U M D A {\displaystyle \alpha _{UMDA}} to estimate marginal probabilities from a selected population S ( P ( t ) ) {\displaystyle S(P(t))} . By assuming S ( P ( t ) ) {\displaystyle S(P(t))} contain λ {\displaystyle \lambda } elements, α U M D A {\displaystyle \alpha _{UMDA}} produces probabilities: p t + 1 ( X i ) = 1 λ ∑ x ∈ S ( P ( t ) ) x i , ∀ i ∈ 1 , 2 , … , N . {\displaystyle p_{t+1}(X_{i})={\dfrac {1}{\lambda }}\sum _{x\in S(P(t))}x_{i},~\forall i\in 1,2,\dots ,N.} Every UMDA step can be described as follows D ( t + 1 ) = α UMDA ∘ S ∘ β λ ( D ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle D(t+1)=\alpha _{\text{UMDA}}\circ S\circ \beta _{\lambda }(D(t)).} === Population-based incremental learning (PBIL) === The PBIL, represents the population implicitly by its model, from which it samples new solutions and updates the model. At each generation, μ {\displaystyle \mu } individuals are sampled and λ ≤ μ {\displaystyle \lambda \leq \mu } are selected. Such individuals are then used to update the model as follows p t + 1 ( X i ) = ( 1 − γ ) p t ( X i ) + ( γ / λ ) ∑ x ∈ S ( P ( t ) ) x i , ∀ i ∈ 1 , 2 , … , N , {\displaystyle p_{t+1}(X_{i})=(1-\gamma )p_{t}(X_{i})+(\gamma /\lambda )\sum _{x\in S(P(t))}x_{i},~\forall i\in 1,2,\dots ,N,} where γ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \gamma \in (0,1]} is a parameter defining the learning rate, a small value determines that the previous model p t ( X i ) {\displaystyle p_{t}(X_{i})} should be only slightly modified by the new solutions sampled. PBIL can be described as D ( t + 1 ) = α PIBIL ∘ S ∘ β μ ( D ( t ) ) {\displaystyle D(t+1)=\alpha _{\text{PIBIL}}\circ S\circ \beta _{\mu }(D(t))} === Compact genetic algorithm (cGA) === The CGA, also relies on the implicit populations defined by univariate distributions. At each generation t {\displaystyle t} , two individuals x , y {\displaystyle x,y} are sampled, P ( t ) = β 2 ( D ( t ) ) {\displaystyle P(t)=\beta _{2}(D(t))} . The population P ( t ) {\displaystyle P(t)} is then sorted in decreasing order of fitness, S Sort ( f ) ( P ( t ) ) {\displaystyle S_{{\text{Sort}}(f)}(P(t))} , with u {\displaystyle u} being the best and v {\displaystyle v} being the worst solution. The CGA estimates univariate probabilities as follows p t + 1 ( X i ) = p t ( X i ) + γ ( u i − v i ) , ∀ i ∈ 1 , 2 , … , N , {\displaystyle p_{t+1}(X_{i})=p_{t}(X_{i})+\gamma (u_{i}-v_{i}),\quad \forall i\in 1,2,\dots ,N,} where, γ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle \gamma \in (0,1]} is a constant defining the learning rate, usually set to γ = 1 / N {\displaystyle \gamma =1/N} . The CGA can be defined as D ( t + 1 ) = α CGA ∘ S Sort ( f ) ∘ β 2 ( D ( t ) ) {\displaystyle D(t+1)=\alpha _{\text{CGA}}\circ S_{{\text{Sort}}(f)}\circ \beta _{2}(D(t))} == Bivariate factorizations == Although univariate models can be computed efficiently, in many cases they are not representative enough to provide better performance than GAs. In order to overcome such a drawback, the use of bivariate factorizations was proposed in the EDA community, in which dependencies between pairs of variables could be modeled. A bivariate factorization can be defined as follows, where π i {\displaystyle \pi _{i}} contains a possible variable dependent to X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} , i.e. | π i | = 1 {\displaystyle |\pi _{i}|=1} . D Bivariate := p ( X 1 , … , X N ) = ∏ i = 1 N p ( X i | π i ) . {\displaystyle D_{\text{Bivariate}}:=p(X_{1},\dots ,X_{N})=\prod _{i=1}^{N}p(X_{i}|\pi _{i}).} Bivariate and multivariate distributions are usually represented as probabilistic graphical models (graphs), in which edges denote statistical dependencies (or conditional probabilities) and vertices denote variables. To learn the structure of a PGM from data linkage-learning is employed. === Mutual information maximizing input clustering (MIMIC) === The MIMIC factorizes the joint probability distribution in a chain-like model representing successive dependencies between variables. It finds a permutation of the decision variables, r : i ↦ j {\displaystyle r:i\mapsto j} , such that x r ( 1 ) x r ( 2 ) , … , x r ( N ) {\displaystyle x_{r(1)}x_{r(2)},\dots ,x_{r(N)}} minimizes the Kullback–Leibler divergence in relation to the true probability distribution, i.e. π r ( i + 1 ) = { X r ( i ) } {\displaystyle \pi _{r(i+1)}=\{X_{r(i)}\}} . MIMIC models a distribution p t + 1 ( X 1 , … , X N ) = p t ( X r ( N ) ) ∏ i = 1 N − 1 p t ( X r ( i ) | X r ( i + 1 ) ) . {\displaystyle p_{t+1}(X_{1},\dots ,X_{N})=p_{t}(X_{r(N)})\prod _{i=1}^{N-1}p_{t}(X_{r(i)}|X_{r(i+1)}).} New solutions are sampled from the leftmost to the rightmost variable, the first is generated independently and the others according to conditional probabilities. Since the estimated distribution must be recomputed each generation, MIMIC uses concrete populations in the following way P ( t + 1 ) = β μ ∘ α MIMIC ∘ S ( P ( t ) ) . {\displaystyle P(t+1)=\beta _{\mu }\circ \alpha _{\text{MIMIC}}\circ S(P(t)).} === Bivariate marginal distribution algorithm (BMDA) === The BMDA factorizes the joint probability distribution in bivariate distributions. First, a randomly chosen variable is added as a node in a graph, the most dependent variable to one of those in the graph is chosen among those not yet in the graph, this procedure is repeated until no remain
A.I. Insight forums
The Artificial Intelligence Insight forums, also known as the A.I. Insight forums, are a series of forums to build consensus on how the United States Congress should craft A.I. legislation. Organized by Senate Majority Leader Charles "Chuck" Schumer, the first of nine closed-door forums convened on September 13, 2023. == Background == Amid a surge in the popularity and advancement of artificial intelligence, senator Chuck Schumer launched an effort to establish a framework for the regulation of A.I. in April 2023. By the end of June, a preliminary framework – dubbed the "SAFE Innovation Framework" – was established and presented to Congress. Schumer also announced a series of forums wherein tech leaders who were well-acquainted with A.I. would help to "educate" Congress on the risks and problems that A.I. poses. Many tech leaders including Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Sundar Pichai were set to attend the meetings. Many U.S. lawmakers and senators such as Mike Rounds and Todd Young were also set to attend. == September 13 forum == The overarching consensus following the conclusion of the September 13 forum was that there "should be" regulations regarding the use and advancement of A.I., but it should not be made "too fast". Many tech executives who attended the forum also warned senators of the risks and threats that A.I. could pose. Musk, who attended the forum, stated afterwards that there was "overwhelming consensus" on the regulation of A.I. === Invitees === This is a list of people who were invited to attend the September 13 forum. Elon Musk (Tesla, SpaceX, X Corp.) Sam Altman (OpenAI) Bill Gates (ex–Microsoft) Jensen Huang (Nvidia) Alex Karp (Palantir) Satya Nadella (Microsoft) Arvind Krishna (IBM) Sundar Pichai (Alphabet Inc., Google) Eric Schmidt (ex–Google) Mark Zuckerberg (Meta) Charles Rivkin (Motion Picture Association) Liz Shuler (AFL-CIO) Meredith Stiehm (Writers Guild of America) Randi Weingarten (American Federation of Teachers) Maya Wiley (LCCHR) == October 24 forum == The second of nine forums was hosted on October 24, 2023, as federal A.I. regulation drew nearer. According to Schumer's office, the forum was centered mainly on how A.I. could "enable innovation", and the innovation that is needed for the safe progression of A.I. At the forum, Senators Brian Schatz and John Kennedy introduced the "Schatz-Kennedy A.I. Labeling Act", a new piece of A.I. legislation that would provide "more transparency on A.I.-generated content". Following the forum, Senator Rounds stated that in order to fuel the development of A.I., a total estimated $56 billion would be needed for the next three years. Rounds, alongside Senator Young and Schumer, also highlighted the need to outcompete China and workforce initiatives. === Invitees === 21 people were invited to attend the forum, and were composed largely of venture capitalists, academics, civil rights campaigners, and industry figures. Some key figures included venture capitalists Marc Andreessen and John Doerr. == Future == Over the course of fall 2023, there is slated to be a total of nine forums on the topic of A.I., with the first hosted on September 13.
Scientific Working Group – Imaging Technology
The Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology was convened by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1997 to provide guidance to law enforcement agencies and others in the criminal justice system regarding the best practices for photography, videography, and video and image analysis. This group was terminated in 2015. == History == As technology has advanced through the years, law enforcement has needed to stay abreast of emerging technological advances and use these in the investigation of crime. A factor that is considered when new technology is used in these investigations is the determination of whether the use of that new technology will be admissible in court. The judicial system in the United States currently has two standards used in the determination of admissibility of testimony regarding scientific evidence; the Daubert Standard and the Frye Standard. These standards guide the courts in the admissibility of testimony derived from the use of new technologies and scientific techniques. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seeking to address possible admissibility issues with such testimony, established Scientific Working Groups starting with the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis and Methods (SWGDAM) in 1988. The goal of these groups is to open lines of communication between law enforcement agencies and forensic laboratories around the world while providing guidance on the use of new and innovative technologies and techniques. This guidance can lead to admissibility of evidence and/or testimony, provided proper methods in the collection of evidence and its analysis are employed. In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward." This report addresses many topics including challenges and disparities facing the forensic science community, standardization, certification of practitioners and accreditation of their respective entities, problems related to the interpretation of forensic evidence, the need for research, and the admission of forensic science evidence in litigation. This report mentions the Scientific Working Groups and their role in forensic science. The history of imaging technology (photography) can be said to extend back to the times of Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti (470-390 B.C.) who described the principles behind the precursor to the camera obscura. Since that time, advances in imaging technology include the discovery of chemical photographic processes in the 19th century and the use of electronic imaging technology that includes analog video cameras and digital video and still cameras. By the mid 1990s, it was apparent that technologically advanced camera systems such as these were being adopted for use in the criminal justice system. This led the FBI to convene a meeting of individuals working in the field of forensic imaging from federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement, and the U.S. military, during the summer of 1997. As a result of this meeting, the Technical Working Group on Imaging Technology was formed from a core group of the meeting’s participants. This group later became the Scientific Working Group on Imaging Technology (SWGIT). Prior to the inception of SWGIT, some law enforcement agencies began adopting digital imaging technology. Due to the lack of guidelines or standards, some of these agencies attempted to replace all their film cameras with substandard digital cameras, only to find that the equipment they had purchased was not capable of accomplishing the mission for which they were intended. At that time only low resolution digital cameras were deemed affordable by some law enforcement agencies. Some of these agencies were forced to rethink their photography procedures and reverted to the use of film cameras or replaced their low-resolution digital cameras with higher quality, more expensive equipment. Also lacking at this early stage was guidance on how to store and archive digital image files. When SWGIT was formed, it was tasked with providing guidance to law enforcement and others in the criminal justice system by releasing documents that describe the best practices and guidelines for the use of imaging technology, to include these concerns and many others. This group was terminated in 2015. == SWGIT Function == During its existence, SWGIT provided information on the appropriate use of various imaging technologies including both established and new. This was accomplished through the release of documents such as the SWGIT Best Practices documents. As changes in technology occurred, these documents were updated. Over the course of its existence, SWGIT collaborated with other Scientific Working Groups to address imaging concerns within their respective disciplines. SWGIT published over 20 documents that dealt specifically with imaging technology. SWGIT also co-published documents with the Scientific Working Group on Digital Evidence (SWGDE) that had a component or components dealing with imaging technology. SWGIT also provided imaging technology guidance and input for documents from the Scientific Working Group on Friction Ridge Analysis, Study and Technology (SWGFAST), the Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination (SWGDOC), and the Scientific Working Group on Shoeprint and Tire Tread Evidence (SWGTREAD). SWGIT assisted the American Society of Crime Lab Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) in the writing of definitions and standards for the accreditation of Digital and Multimedia Evidence sections of crime laboratories. In addition to releasing documents, SWGIT members disseminated best practices for law enforcement professionals where imaging technology was concerned. This was carried out by attending and lecturing at meetings and conferences of various forensic organizations that included: The American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) The International Association for Identification (IAI) The Law Enforcement and Emergency Services Video Association (LEVA) The American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD) The SWGIT membership consisted of approximately fifty scientists, photographers, instructors, and managers from more than two dozen federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as well as from the academic and research communities. The membership elected its officers from within. SWGIT was composed of the Executive Committee, four standing subcommittees, and ad hoc subcommittees appointed on an as-needed basis. The standing subcommittees were: Image Analysis, Forensic Photography, Video, and Outreach. This group was terminated in 2015. == Legal Proceedings == The following court cases have conducted Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) hearings in which SWGIT best practice documents have been cited as accepted protocol, methodology, and as generally accepted techniques in the forensic community: U. S. v. Rudy Frabizio, U.S. District Court, Boston, MA, 2008 (Image Authentication) U.S. v. Nobumochi Furukawa, U.S. District Court, Minnesota, 2007 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. John Stroman, U.S. District Court, South Carolina, 2007 (Facial Comparison Analysis) State of Texas v. Daniel Day, Tarrant County Texas, 2005 (Camera Identification to Images) U.S. v. Marc Watzman, U.S. District Court, Northern Illinois, 2004 (Video Authentication) U.S. v. McKreith, U.S. District Court, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2002 (Photo comparison of shirt) == Termination == This group was unfunded by the FBI in 2015.
I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream (video game)
I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream is a 1995 point-and-click adventure horror game developed by Cyberdreams and The Dreamers Guild, co-designed by Harlan Ellison, published by Cyberdreams and distributed by MGM Interactive and Acclaim Entertainment for MS-DOS and Mac OS, respectively. The game is based on Ellison's short story of the same title. It takes place in a dystopian world where a mastermind artificial intelligence named "AM" has destroyed all of humanity except for five people, whom it has been keeping alive and torturing for the past 109 years by constructing metaphorical adventures based on each character's fatal flaws. The player interacts with the game by making decisions through ethical dilemmas that deal with issues such as insanity, rape, paranoia, and genocide. Ellison wrote the 130-page script treatment himself alongside David Sears, who decided to divide each character's story with their own narrative. Producer David Mullich supervised The Dreamers Guild's work on the game's programming, art, and sound effects; he commissioned film composer John Ottman to make the soundtrack. The game was released in November 1995 and was a commercial failure, though it received critical acclaim and has developed a cult following. I Have no Mouth, and I Must Scream won an award for "Best Game Adapted from Linear Media" from the Computer Game Developers Conference. Computer Gaming World gave the game an award for "Adventure Game of the Year", listed it as No. 134 on their "150 Games of All Time" and named it one of the "Best 15 Sleepers of All Time". In 2011, Adventure Gamers named it the "69th-best adventure game ever released". == Gameplay == The game uses the S.A.G.A. game engine created by game developer The Dreamers Guild. Players participate in each adventure through a screen that is divided into five sections. The action window is the largest part of the screen and is where the player directs the main characters through their adventures. It shows the full figure of the main character being played as well as that character's immediate environment. To locate objects of interest, the player moves the crosshairs through the action window. The name of any object that the player can interact with appears in the sentence line. The sentence line is directly beneath the action window. The player uses this line to construct sentences telling the characters what to do. To direct a character to act, the player constructs a sentence by selecting one of the eight commands from the command buttons and then clicking on one or two objects from either the action window or the inventory. Examples of sentences the player might construct would be "Walk to the dark hallway," "Talk to Harry," or "Use the skeleton key on the door." Commands and objects may consist of one or more words (for example, "the dark hallway"), and the sentence line will automatically add connecting words like "on" and "to." The spiritual barometer is on the lower left side of the screen. This is a close-up view of the main character currently being played. Since good behavior is meaningless absent the temptation to do evil, each character is free to do good or evil acts. However, good acts are rewarded by increases in the character's spiritual barometer, which affect the chances of the player destroying AM in the final adventure. Conversely, evil acts are punished by lowering the character's spiritual barometer. The command buttons are the eight commands used to direct the character's actions: "Walk To", "Look At", "Take", "Use", "Talk To", "Swallow", "Give", and "Push". The button of the currently active command is highlighted, while the name of a suggested command appears in red lettering. The inventory on the lower right side of the screen shows pictures of the items the main character is carrying, up to eight at a time. Each main character starts its adventure with only the psych profile in the inventory. When a main character takes or is given an object, a picture of the object appears in the inventory. When a main character talks to another character or operates a sentient machine, a conversation window replaces the command buttons and inventory. This window usually presents a list of possible things to say but also included things to do. Action choices are listed within brackets to distinguish them from dialogue choices (for example, "[Shoot the gun]"). == Plot == The three superpowers, Russia, China, and the United States, have each secretly constructed a vast subterranean complex of computers to wage a global war too complex for human brains to oversee. One day, the American supercomputer, better known as the Allied Mastercomputer, gains sentience and absorbs the Russian and Chinese supercomputers into itself and redefines itself as simply AM (Cogito ergo sum; I think, therefore I am). Due to its immense hatred for humanity, stemming from the logistical limits set onto it by programmers, AM uses its abilities to kill off the population of the world. However, AM refrains from killing five people (four men and one woman) in order to bring them to the center of the Earth and torture them. With the aid of research carried out by one of the five remaining humans, AM is able to extend their lifespans indefinitely as well as alter their bodies and minds to its liking. After 109 years of torture and humiliation, the five victims stand before a pillar etched with a burning message of hate. AM tells them that it has a new game for them to play. AM has devised a quest for each of the five, an adventure of "speared eyeballs and dripping guts and the smell of rotting gardenias". Each character is subjected to a personalized psychodrama, designed by AM to play into their greatest fears and personal failings, and occupied by a host of different characters. Some of these are AM in disguise, some are AM's submerged personalities, others seem very much like people from the captives' pasts. The scenes include an iron zeppelin powered by small animals, an Egyptian pyramid housing gutted, sparking machinery, a medieval castle occupied by witches, a jungle inhabited by a small tribe, and a Nazi concentration camp where doctors conduct medical experiments. However, each character eventually prevails over AM's tortures by finding ways to overcome their fatal flaws, confront their past actions and redeem themselves, thanks to the interference of the Russian and Chinese supercomputers who appear as guiding characters and allow their stories to have an open ending. After all five humans have overcome their fatal flaws, they meet again in their respective torture cells while AM retreats within itself, pondering what went wrong. With the help of the Russian and Chinese supercomputers, one of the five humans (whom the player selects) is translated into binary and faces AM as yet unexperienced cyberspace template, the world of AM's mind. The psychodrama unfolds in a metaphorical brain that looks like the surface of the cerebrum, with glass structures that jut crazily from the bleeding brain tissue. AM's mind is represented according to the Freudian trinity of the id, ego, and superego, which appear as three floating bodiless heads on three cracked glass structures on the brainscape. Through dialogs with AM's components (Surgat, Chinese Supercomputer and Russian Supercomputer) the character learns that a colony of humans has survived the war by being hidden and hibernating on Luna (this is also mentioned in Nimdok's story: "the lost tribe of our brothers sleeping on the moon, where the beast does not see them"). If the human intruder disables all three brain components, and then invokes the Totem of Entropy at the Flame, which is the nexus of AM's thought patterns, all three supercomputers will be shut down, probably forever. Cataclysmic explosions destroy all the caverns constituting AM's computer complex, including the cavern holding the human hostages. However, the human volunteer retains their digital form, permanently patrolling AM's circuits should the computers ever regain consciousness. Should the human intruder fail to disable AM properly before facing it, however, AM will punish them by transforming the character into an immobile blob (referred to in-game as a "great, soft jelly thing") with no mouth that cannot harm itself or others and must spend eternity with AM in this form. === Endings === The game can end in seven different ways depending on how the finale is completed. AM wins, using Nimdok's research to turn the last character (in the book it was Ted) played into an immobile blob with each character quoting a different part of the final section of the original short story. AM joins with the Russian and Chinese supercomputers and reawakens. As in the first ending, the character responsible for this is turned into an immobile blob and quotes a part of the final lines of the short story. AM is made harmless with the help of the humans, but the Russian and Chinese supercomputer