BeReal (stylized on the app logo as BeReal.) is a French social-networking app released in 2020, developed by Alexis Barreyat and Kévin Perreau. Currently, it is owned by Voodoo. Its main feature is a daily notification that encourages users to share photos of themselves in their day-to-day life, on any randomly selected two-minute window every day. Critics noted its emphasis on authenticity, which some felt crossed the line into the mundane. The primary reference of its name relates to its focus on users uploading unpolished photos, with it being a pun of the term B-reel. According to the app's description on Apple's App Store, BeReal encourages its users to "show their friends who they really are, for once," by removing filters and opportunities to stage or edit photos. After a couple of years of relative obscurity, it rapidly gained popularity in early and mid-2022 growing from 21.6 million to 73.5 million users between July and August, before experiencing a decrease in use in 2023 and continuing to decline to 23 million users at the beginning of 2024. == History == The app was developed by Alexis Barreyat, a former employee at GoPro, and Kévin Perreau, a graduate from 42 in Paris. Initially released in 2020, it first gained widespread popularity in early 2022. It first spread widely on college campuses, partially due to a paid ambassador program. In late August 2022, the application had over 10 million active daily users and 21.6 million active monthly users. As of February 2023, the app has grown to 13 million active daily users and 47.8 million active monthly users. In June 2021, BeReal received a $30 million funding round led by Andreessen Horowitz and Accel. In May 2022, BeReal secured $85 million in a funding round led by Yuri Milner's DST Global, increasing its valuation to about $600 million. On July 25, 2022, BeReal topped Apple's free app list in the iOS App Store, and remained until September 2022. BeReal also received Apple's iPhone App of the Year in 2022. By late spring 2023, the app's momentum was waning, as daily users dropped to about 6 million, from 15 million in October 2022. In August 2024, there was a resurgence after a campaign at the Paris Olympics 2024, with the app reportedly gaining 1000 users. In June 2024, BeReal was acquired by the French company Voodoo for a reported €500 million. Alexis Barreyat is set to step down after a transition period. == Features == Once per day, BeReal notifies all users that a two-minute window to post is open. It asks users to create a post (known eponymously as a "BeReal") which, using mandatory simultaneous photos and now short videos from both the front and back cameras, provides a visual depiction of what they are doing at that moment, with an option to caption their post. The given window varies from day to day, and is not known to users before the notification is received. Once the daily notification is sent, users lose the ability to see others' BeReals from the previous day. Furthermore, users cannot see any of the current day's BeReals until they upload their own. On-time BeReals show the time it was uploaded, meanwhile, late BeReals uploaded after the two-minute window shows how late the BeReal was taken, but the user has to long-press the BeReal to reveal the time it was uploaded. Other users can also see how many attempts the poster took to take the BeReal, as well as their location when the BeReal was taken. Users only get one chance to delete their BeReal and post another one, and they used to not be able to post more than one at any time. However, in 2023, a feature was added that allowed users to post up to two extra BeReals on days when they posted their first BeReal within the 2-minute window. In July 2024, the number of bonus BeReals was increased to 5. [1] BeReal also features a "Discovery" section, wherein users are given the option to share to a much wider, public audience. This feature, however, is limited, as users are not able to interact with the posts through commenting—unlike the "My Friends" feature. In August 2023, in an attempt to make BeReal more social, another feature was added so that users are now able to see their friends of friends' BeReal. The app reportedly uses HiveAI to automate its image moderation process. However, there is also a report function that allows users to report a photo or another user if they are posting inappropriate content. === Comparison to other platforms === Because of its daily cycle of engagement, it has been compared to Wordle, which gained popularity earlier in 2022. It also supports a platform similar to Snapchat with a theme of impermanence and brevity. BeReal has been described as designed to compete with Instagram while simultaneously de-emphasising social media addiction and overuse. The app does not allow any photo filters or other editing, and has no follower counts. Marketing material from the company said that the app "can be addictive" and that "BeReal won't make you famous." Jacob Arnott, managing director of social agency We the People, describes BeReal as "an anti-Instagram" due to its raw and unedited nature. The app's foundation on friends rather than followers resembles Facebook's platform of adding friends, which comprise the content of a user's feed. This also resembles Instagram's "close friends" story feature. Further, rather than "liking" posts, BeReal uses "RealMojis" which involves taking a photo to interact with other posts. With the popularity of BeReal, other providers have launched similar features. In July 2022, Instagram launched a "Dual Camera" feature similar to BeReal, and in August 2022 it began testing a feature called "IG Candid Challenges", where users are prompted to post once a day within two minutes. As of September 2022, TikTok has also launched a feature called TikTok Now, following the same concept. In December 2022, similar to Spotify's "Wrapped," BeReal launched a feature involving a video of a compilation of users' BeReal posts of 2022. == User characteristics == BeReal is considered to be targeted towards Generation Z users, and attempts to minimise "social media fatigue", a feeling of numbness and disconnection from reality caused by constant interaction with an idealised version of others. This is a "core generational value" that this demographic holds compared to Millennials. Further, BeReal's users have been particularly strong across universities and university-aged students, and the majority of users are in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. In 2022, the majority of users were female, with 43.2% of users falling within the age range of 16 to 25 and 55.1% of users being 26 to 44 years old. BeReal, the platform encourages users to share their real time moments by sending a daily notification that gives a least two minutes to post a unedited photo using bot the front and back camera, although users can post later and retake photos from when the notification happens, this action are still visible to friends, reinforcing transparency and genuine in the moment sharing. == Reception == Jason Koebler, a writer for Vice, wrote that in contrast to Instagram, which presents an unattainable view of people's lives, BeReal instead "makes everyone look extremely boring". Niklas Myhr, a professor of social media at Chapman University, argued that depth of engagement may determine whether the app is a passing trend or has "staying power". Kelsey Weekman, a reporter for BuzzFeed News, noted that the app's unwillingness to "glamorise the banality of life" made it feel "humbling" in its emphasis on authenticity. Niloufar Haidari for The Guardian comments similarly that where the app succeeds in being "drab" in perhaps a positive way, it fails in potentially "un-inspiring" users. Likewise, Dr. Brad Ridout, a behavioral psychologist at the University of Sydney, emphasizes that the "boring" experience is what the creators are targeting for the app and, in response to Instagram's platform of flawlessness, that "perfection is the enemy of happiness". === Criticisms === Some people regularly post after the two-minute notification expires, leading to some criticism of the app, as the ability to post late undermines its aims of authenticity. In addition, BeReal's daily two-minute window has been argued to contribute to social media fatigue and a need for self-exposure, as well as constant access to phones.
Web Intents
Web Intents was an experimental framework for web-based inter-application communication and service discovery. Web Intents consists of a discovery mechanism and a very light-weight RPC system between web applications, modelled after the Intents system in Android. In the context of the framework an Intent equals an action to be performed by a provider. Web Intents allow two web applications to communicate with each other, without either of them having to actually know what the other one is. == Support == === Client === Google Chrome versions 18 to 23 natively supported Web Intents. This support was disabled in version 24, citing the existence of a "number of areas for development in both the API and specific user experience in Chrome". There is a JavaScript shim with support for IE 8, IE 9, Opera, Safari, Firefox 3+ and Chrome 3+. === Server === There are some Web Intents proxy pages that make available some real services that don't yet support intents. AddThis supports Web Intents by their sharing tools regardless of browser support. == History == Paul Kinlan of Google announced the Web Intents project in December 2010. He soon released a prototype API to GitHub. In August 2011 Google announced that Chrome would support Web Intents. Google and Mozilla have started co-operating to unify Web Intents and Mozilla's Web Activities (which tries to solve the same problem) into one proposal. In November 2012, Greg Billock of Google announced that experimental support of Web Intents had been removed from Chrome.
The AI Con
The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech's Hype and Create the Future We Want is a 2025 non-fiction book by linguist Emily M. Bender and sociologist Alex Hanna. It argues that much of what is labeled "artificial intelligence" is a misleading term that obscures ordinary automation while concentrating power in a small number of technology firms. The book was published in May 2025 by Harper in the United States and Bodley Head in the United Kingdom. It was developed alongside the authors' long-running podcast Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000, which critiques exaggerated claims about AI. == Synopsis == The authors present AI as a marketing umbrella that encourages audiences to infer understanding and agency where none exist. They argue readers should treat such language skeptically and to separate specific automated tasks from broad claims of intelligence. The book describes a recurring hype cycle in which corporate narratives justify data and labor extraction, the replacement of human services with cheaper substitutes, and the diversion of attention from present harms to speculative futures. While acknowledging limited uses such as pattern recognition, the authors argue that contemporary systems are best understood as text and media generators shaped by training data and human labor, not as thinking or reasoning entities. A central theme is the social and environmental cost of scaling these systems, including increased energy and water use, the appropriation of creative work for training, and the outsourcing of ghost work to low-paid data workers worldwide. These costs are linked to workplace effects, with the authors arguing that automation rarely eliminates jobs outright and more often degrades them through surveillance, work intensification, and unpaid oversight. As alternatives to passive adoption, the authors propose concrete responses: asking precise questions about what is being automated and why, demanding transparency about data and evaluation, and practicing what they call strategic refusal when deployment conflicts with evidence or values. The book also develops a vocabulary for public debate, rejecting both boosterish and doomerish narratives as grounded in the same assumption that AI is a singular, autonomous force. The authors recommend reading strategies such as favoring trusted human sources over automated summaries and using humor to deflate inflated claims. They describe a link between language to policy and power, arguing that precise terminology can help policymakers and the public resist austerity-driven automation and demand accountability for errors and harms. == Reception == The Guardian praised the book's myth-busting approach and its analysis of how hype erodes cultural and civic life by normalizing synthetic media as a substitute for human judgment. Kirkus Reviews described it as a contrarian account that catalogs concrete risks while cutting through speculative predictions. An interview in Business Insider highlighted the authors' accessible frameworks, including their proposal to describe chatbots as conversation simulators and to evaluate systems in terms of values, labor, and evidence. Coverage in GeekWire emphasized the book's call for resistance through collective bargaining, stronger data rights, and a norm of rejecting deployments that fail basic standards of necessity and evaluation. Some reviews were more critical. A review in LLRX argued that the book's tone could be overly polemical and that it gave limited attention to potential benefits claimed for generative systems. Coverage in the Financial Times, focused on Bender's broader public scholarship, situated the book within her long-standing critique of anthropomorphic narratives about large language models and her advocacy for more democratic oversight of automated systems.
Multi-armed bandit
In probability theory and machine learning, the multi-armed bandit problem (sometimes called the K- or N-armed bandit problem) is named from imagining a gambler at a row of slot machines (sometimes known as "one-armed bandits"), who has to decide which machines to play, how many times to play each machine and in which order to play them, and whether to continue with the current machine or try a different machine. More generally, it is a problem in which a decision maker iteratively selects one of multiple fixed choices (i.e., arms or actions) when the properties of each choice are only partially known at the time of allocation, and may become better understood as time passes. A fundamental aspect of bandit problems is that choosing an arm does not affect the properties of the arm or other arms. Instances of the multi-armed bandit problem include the task of iteratively allocating a fixed, limited set of resources between competing (alternative) choices in a way that minimizes the regret. A notable alternative setup for the multi-armed bandit problem includes the "best arm identification (BAI)" problem where the goal is instead to identify the best choice by the end of a finite number of rounds. The multi-armed bandit problem is a classic reinforcement learning problem that exemplifies the exploration–exploitation tradeoff dilemma. In contrast to general reinforcement learning, the selected actions in bandit problems do not affect the reward distribution of the arms. The multi-armed bandit problem also falls into the broad category of stochastic scheduling. In the problem, each machine provides a random reward from a probability distribution specific to that machine, that is not known a priori. The objective of the gambler is to maximize the sum of rewards earned through a sequence of lever pulls. The crucial tradeoff the gambler faces at each trial is between "exploitation" of the machine that has the highest expected payoff and "exploration" to get more information about the expected payoffs of the other machines. The trade-off between exploration and exploitation is also faced in machine learning. In practice, multi-armed bandits have been used to model problems such as managing research projects in a large organization, like a science foundation or a pharmaceutical company. In early versions of the problem, the gambler begins with no initial knowledge about the machines. Herbert Robbins in 1952, realizing the importance of the problem, constructed convergent population selection strategies in "some aspects of the sequential design of experiments". A theorem, the Gittins index, first published by John C. Gittins, gives an optimal policy for maximizing the expected discounted reward. == Empirical motivation == The multi-armed bandit problem models an agent that simultaneously attempts to acquire new knowledge (called "exploration") and optimize their decisions based on existing knowledge (called "exploitation"). The agent attempts to balance these competing tasks in order to maximize their total value over the period of time considered. There are many practical applications of the bandit model, for example: clinical trials investigating the effects of different experimental treatments while minimizing patient losses, adaptive routing efforts for minimizing delays in a network, financial portfolio design In these practical examples, the problem requires balancing reward maximization based on the knowledge already acquired with attempting new actions to further increase knowledge. This is known as the exploitation vs. exploration tradeoff in machine learning. The model has also been used to control dynamic allocation of resources to different projects, answering the question of which project to work on, given uncertainty about the difficulty and payoff of each possibility. Originally considered by Allied scientists in World War II, it proved so intractable that, according to Peter Whittle, the problem was proposed to be dropped over Germany so that German scientists could also waste their time on it. The version of the problem now commonly analyzed was formulated by Herbert Robbins in 1952. == The multi-armed bandit model == The multi-armed bandit (short: bandit or MAB) can be seen as a set of real distributions B = { R 1 , … , R K } {\displaystyle B=\{R_{1},\dots ,R_{K}\}} , each distribution being associated with the rewards delivered by one of the K ∈ N + {\displaystyle K\in \mathbb {N} ^{+}} levers. Let μ 1 , … , μ K {\displaystyle \mu _{1},\dots ,\mu _{K}} be the mean values associated with these reward distributions. The gambler iteratively plays one lever per round and observes the associated reward. The objective is to maximize the sum of the collected rewards. The horizon H {\displaystyle H} is the number of rounds that remain to be played. The bandit problem is formally equivalent to a one-state Markov decision process. The regret ρ {\displaystyle \rho } after T {\displaystyle T} rounds is defined as the expected difference between the reward sum associated with an optimal strategy and the sum of the collected rewards: ρ = T μ ∗ − ∑ t = 1 T r ^ t {\displaystyle \rho =T\mu ^{}-\sum _{t=1}^{T}{\widehat {r}}_{t}} , where μ ∗ {\displaystyle \mu ^{}} is the maximal reward mean, μ ∗ = max k { μ k } {\displaystyle \mu ^{}=\max _{k}\{\mu _{k}\}} , and r ^ t {\displaystyle {\widehat {r}}_{t}} is the reward in round t {\displaystyle t} . A zero-regret strategy is a strategy whose average regret per round ρ / T {\displaystyle \rho /T} tends to zero with probability 1 when the number of played rounds tends to infinity. Intuitively, zero-regret strategies are guaranteed to converge to a (not necessarily unique) optimal strategy if enough rounds are played. == Variations == A common formulation is the Binary multi-armed bandit or Bernoulli multi-armed bandit, which issues a reward of one with probability p {\displaystyle p} , and otherwise a reward of zero. Another formulation of the multi-armed bandit has each arm representing an independent Markov machine. Each time a particular arm is played, the state of that machine advances to a new one, chosen according to the Markov state evolution probabilities. There is a reward depending on the current state of the machine. In a generalization called the "restless bandit problem", the states of non-played arms can also evolve over time. There has also been discussion of systems where the number of choices (about which arm to play) increases over time. Computer science researchers have studied multi-armed bandits under worst-case assumptions, obtaining algorithms to minimize regret in both finite and infinite (asymptotic) time horizons for both stochastic and non-stochastic arm payoffs. === Best arm identification === An important variation of the classical regret minimization problem in multi-armed bandits is best arm identification (BAI), also known as pure exploration. This problem is crucial in various applications, including clinical trials, adaptive routing, recommendation systems, and A/B testing. In BAI, the objective is to identify the arm having the highest expected reward. An algorithm in this setting is characterized by a sampling rule, a decision rule, and a stopping rule, described as follows: Sampling rule: ( a t ) t ≥ 1 {\displaystyle (a_{t})_{t\geq 1}} is a sequence of actions at each time step Stopping rule: τ {\displaystyle \tau } is a (random) stopping time which suggests when to stop collecting samples Decision rule: a ^ τ {\displaystyle {\hat {a}}_{\tau }} is a guess on the best arm based on the data collected up to time τ {\displaystyle \tau } There are two predominant settings in BAI: Fixed budget setting: Given a time horizon T ≥ 1 {\displaystyle T\geq 1} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} minimizing probability of error δ {\displaystyle \delta } . Fixed confidence setting: Given a confidence level δ ∈ ( 0 , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta \in (0,1)} , the objective is to identify the arm with the highest expected reward a ⋆ ∈ arg max k μ k {\displaystyle a^{\star }\in \arg \max _{k}\mu _{k}} with the least possible amount of trials and with probability of error P ( a ^ τ ≠ a ⋆ ) ≤ δ {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} ({\hat {a}}_{\tau }\neq a^{\star })\leq \delta } . For example using a decision rule, we could use m 1 {\displaystyle m_{1}} where m {\displaystyle m} is the machine no.1 (you can use a different variable respectively) and 1 {\displaystyle 1} is the amount for each time an attempt is made at pulling the lever, where ∫ ∑ m 1 , m 2 , ( . . . ) = M {\displaystyle \int \sum m_{1},m_{2},(...)=M} , identify M {\displaystyle M} as the sum of each attempts m 1 + m 2 {\displaystyle m_{1}+m_{2}} , (...) as needed, and from there you can get a ratio, sum or mean as quantitative probability and sample your formulation for each slots. You can also do ∫ ∑ k ∝ i N − (
Maximum inner-product search
Maximum inner-product search (MIPS) is a search problem, with a corresponding class of search algorithms which attempt to maximise the inner product between a query and the data items to be retrieved. MIPS algorithms are used in a wide variety of big data applications, including recommendation algorithms and machine learning. Formally, for a database of vectors x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} defined over a set of labels S {\displaystyle S} in an inner product space with an inner product ⟨ ⋅ , ⋅ ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle } defined on it, MIPS search can be defined as the problem of determining a r g m a x i ∈ S ⟨ x i , q ⟩ {\displaystyle {\underset {i\in S}{\operatorname {arg\,max} }}\ \langle x_{i},q\rangle } for a given query q {\displaystyle q} . Although there is an obvious linear-time implementation, it is generally too slow to be used on practical problems. However, efficient algorithms exist to speed up MIPS search. Under the assumption of all vectors in the set having constant norm, MIPS can be viewed as equivalent to a nearest neighbor search (NNS) problem in which maximizing the inner product is equivalent to minimizing the corresponding distance metric in the NNS problem. Like other forms of NNS, MIPS algorithms may be approximate or exact. MIPS search is used as part of DeepMind's RETRO algorithm.
Period-tracking app
Period-tracking apps are mobile applications used to track the menstrual cycle. They may be used to predict menstruation, to plan fertility, and to track health. Examples include Clue, Glow, and Flo. == Function == Users enter their dates of menstruation, and frequently other experiences such as vaginal discharge and spotting; premenstrual syndrome; changes in mood; menstrual cramps and other pain; and other symptoms such as appetite changes, bloating, and acne. The apps predict the date of users' next period, and often also their ovulation and fertile window. Some apps have additional features such as contraceptive reminders, educational content, tracking modes for use during pregnancy, or the ability to share one's menstrual cycle data with a partner. == Privacy == Period-tracking apps collect personal health data, potentially raising concerns about privacy. Researchers have warned that data may be transferred to third parties and used for consumer profiling and targeted advertising, used for employment and health insurance discrimination, or used to prosecute users for seeking abortions. After the 2022 decision by the United States Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, and the bans and restrictions on abortion in many US states that followed, many American women uninstalled the apps amidst fear that the data could be accessed by law enforcement and used to prosecute users. WIRED published a ranking of several period-tracking apps by data privacy.
Adversarial machine learning
Adversarial machine learning is the study of the attacks on machine learning algorithms, and of the defenses against such attacks. Machine learning techniques are mostly designed to work on specific problem sets, under the assumption that the training and test data are generated from the same statistical distribution (IID). However, this assumption is often violated in practical high-stake applications, where users may intentionally supply fabricated data that violates the statistical assumption. Most common attacks in adversarial machine learning include evasion attacks, data poisoning attacks, Byzantine attacks and model extraction. == History == At the MIT Spam Conference in January 2004, John Graham-Cumming showed that a machine-learning spam filter could be used to defeat another machine-learning spam filter by automatically learning which words to add to a spam email to get the email classified as not spam. In 2004, Nilesh Dalvi and others noted that linear classifiers used in spam filters could be defeated by simple "evasion attacks" as spammers inserted "good words" into their spam emails. (Around 2007, some spammers added random noise to fuzz words within "image spam" in order to defeat OCR-based filters.) In 2006, Marco Barreno and others published "Can Machine Learning Be Secure?", outlining a broad taxonomy of attacks. As late as 2013 many researchers continued to hope that non-linear classifiers (such as support vector machines and neural networks) might be robust to adversaries, until Battista Biggio and others demonstrated the first gradient-based attacks on such machine-learning models (2012–2013). In 2012, deep neural networks began to dominate computer vision problems; starting in 2014, Christian Szegedy and others demonstrated that deep neural networks could be fooled by adversaries, again using a gradient-based attack to craft adversarial perturbations. Further work would show that adversarial attacks are harder to produce in uncontrolled environments, due to the different environmental constraints that cancel out the effect of noise. For example, any small rotation or slight illumination on an adversarial image can destroy the adversariality. In addition, researchers such as Google Brain's Nick Frosst point out that it is much easier to make self-driving cars miss stop signs by physically removing the sign itself, rather than creating adversarial examples. Frosst also believes that the adversarial machine learning community incorrectly assumes models trained on a certain data distribution will also perform well on a completely different data distribution. He suggests that a new approach to machine learning should be explored, and is currently working on a unique neural network that has characteristics more similar to human perception than state-of-the-art approaches. While adversarial machine learning continues to be heavily rooted in academia, large tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, and IBM have begun curating documentation and open source code bases to allow others to concretely assess the robustness of machine learning models and minimize the risk of adversarial attacks. === Examples === Examples include attacks in spam filtering, where spam messages are obfuscated through the misspelling of "bad" words or the insertion of "good" words; attacks in computer security, such as obfuscating malware code within network packets or modifying the characteristics of a network flow to mislead intrusion detection; attacks in biometric recognition where fake biometric traits may be exploited to impersonate a legitimate user; or to compromise users' template galleries that adapt to updated traits over time. Researchers showed that by changing only one-pixel it was possible to fool deep learning algorithms. Others 3-D printed a toy turtle with a texture engineered to make Google's object detection AI classify it as a rifle regardless of the angle from which the turtle was viewed. Creating the turtle required only low-cost commercially available 3-D printing technology. A machine-tweaked image of a dog was shown to look like a cat to both computers and humans. A 2019 study reported that humans can guess how machines will classify adversarial images. Researchers discovered methods for perturbing the appearance of a stop sign such that an autonomous vehicle classified it as a merge or speed limit sign. A data poisoning filter called Nightshade was released in 2023 by researchers at the University of Chicago. It was created for use by visual artists to put on their artwork to corrupt the data set of text-to-image models, which usually scrape their data from the internet without the consent of the image creator. McAfee attacked Tesla's former Mobileye system, fooling it into driving 50 mph over the speed limit, simply by adding a two-inch strip of black tape to a speed limit sign. Adversarial patterns on glasses or clothing designed to deceive facial-recognition systems or license-plate readers, have led to a niche industry of "stealth streetwear". An adversarial attack on a neural network can allow an attacker to inject algorithms into the target system. Researchers can also create adversarial audio inputs to disguise commands to intelligent assistants in benign-seeming audio; a parallel literature explores human perception of such stimuli. Clustering algorithms are used in security applications. Malware and computer virus analysis aims to identify malware families, and to generate specific detection signatures. In the context of malware detection, researchers have proposed methods for adversarial malware generation that automatically craft binaries to evade learning-based detectors while preserving malicious functionality. Optimization-based attacks such as GAMMA use genetic algorithms to inject benign content (for example, padding or new PE sections) into Windows executables, framing evasion as a constrained optimization problem that balances misclassification success with the size of the injected payload and showing transferability to commercial antivirus products. Complementary work uses generative adversarial networks (GANs) to learn feature-space perturbations that cause malware to be classified as benign; Mal-LSGAN, for instance, replaces the standard GAN loss with a least-squares objective and modified activation functions to improve training stability and produce adversarial malware examples that substantially reduce true positive rates across multiple detectors. == Challenges in applying machine learning to security == Researchers have observed that the constraints under which machine-learning techniques function in the security domain are different from those of common benchmark domains. Security data may change over time, include mislabeled samples, or reflect adversarial behavior, which complicates evaluation and reproducibility. === Data collection issues === Security datasets vary across formats, including binaries, network traces, and log files. Studies have reported that the process of converting these sources into features can introduce bias or inconsistencies. In addition, time-based leakage can occur when related malware samples are not properly separated across training and testing splits, which may lead to overly optimistic results. === Labeling and ground truth challenges === Malware labels are often unstable because different antivirus engines may classify the same sample in conflicting ways. Ceschin et al. note that families may be renamed or reorganized over time, causing further discrepancies in ground truth and reducing the reliability of benchmarks. === Concept drift === Because malware creators continuously adapt their techniques, the statistical properties of malicious samples also change. This form of concept drift has been widely documented and may reduce model performance unless systems are updated regularly or incorporate mechanisms for incremental learning. === Feature robustness === Researchers differentiate between features that can be easily manipulated and those that are more resistant to modification. For example, simple static attributes, such as header fields, may be altered by attackers, while structural features, such as control-flow graphs, are generally more stable but computationally expensive to extract. === Class imbalance === In realistic deployment environments, the proportion of malicious samples can be extremely low, ranging from 0.01% to 2% of total data. This unbalanced distribution causes models to develop a bias towards the majority class, achieving high accuracy but failing to identify malicious samples. Prior approaches to this problem have included both data-level solutions and sequence-specific models. Methods like n-gram and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks can model sequential data, but their performance has been shown to decline significantly when malware samples are realistically proportioned in the training set, demonstrating the limitations in