The United States Department of Defense has been analyzing and employing military applications of artificial intelligence since at least 2014. The program initially focused on drones and other robots, but has also been using large language models for military research and analysis. The current US policy on lethal autonomous weapons is Department of Defense Directive 3000.09, updated in January 2023. == Background == The United States Department of Defense began developing lethal autonomous weapons as early as the Reagan administration. An early version of the Tomahawk missile could have been used to destroy Soviet ships without direct human control; the initiative was abandoned after the United States and the Soviet Union signed START I. By 2014, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Norway had already begun using missiles equipped with artificial intelligence systems. The Department of Defense established a policy on the use of artificial intelligence in 2012. == History == === 2016–2017: Carter secretaryship === In May 2016, secretary of defense Ash Carter stated that his Third Offset strategy would include utilizing artificial intelligence as a military advantage. The New York Times reported that year that the Department of Defense had tested an autonomous drone at an approximation of a Middle Eastern village at Camp Edwards. Deputy secretary of defense Robert O. Work, who advocated for developing artificial intelligence, told the Times that the United States needed to compete with China and Russia by having a tactical advantage they could not easily replicate. The initiative was developed by DARPA beginning in 2015. The use of artificial intelligence in the U.S. military was controversial within the department; in February, Paul Scharre, who worked for the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the secretaryships of Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, published a report about the risks of artificial intelligence for broad military applications. === 2017–2019: Mattis secretaryship === By 2017, the United States Air Force had already begun using artificial intelligence in military robots. The Air Force's use of Neurala, an artificial intelligence company, concerned officials in the Department of Defense after an investigation found that Neurala had accepted money from an investment firm with funding from a state-run Chinese company. The Department of Defense began heavily investing in artificial intelligence after Work established Project Maven, an initiative to encourage the development and integration of artificial intelligence in the military, in April 2017. In May 2018, secretary of defense Jim Mattis privately expressed to president Donald Trump that he needed to establish a national strategy on artificial intelligence, quoting an article from former secretary of state Henry Kissinger that called for a presidential commission on the technology. The Department of Defense established the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center the following month. Google began working with the Department of Defense on analyzing drone footage as early as March. Google's involvement in the initiative led to protests from employees and mass resignations. Seeking to quell internal unrest, Google stated it would not renew its contract with the Department of Defense in June. The Department of Defense announced an artificial intelligence contract with Microsoft in October. === 2025–present: Hegseth secretaryship === In December 2025, secretary of defense Pete Hegseth announced GenAI.mil, an artificial intelligence platform for the Department of Defense. In a video announcing the platform, Hegseth stated that Department of Defense workers would be able to "conduct deep research, format documents and even analyze video or imagery." The Department of Defense contracted first Gemini by Google, then ChatGPT by OpenAI, and finally Grok by xAI for the platform. Claude by Anthropic was also contracted by the Department of Defense and was in use on secure servers until it was revealed that Claude had been used in the 2026 operation to capture Nicolás Maduro, who was at the time the leader of Venezuela. This revelation sparked a high-profile dispute over Anthropic's ability to constrain Claude's useage, resulting in the termination of Anthropic's $200 million defense contract. The Department of Defense also moved to label Anthropic a supply chain risk, which was later blocked by a federal judge.
Fatsecret
Fatsecret, commonly styled as fatsecret, is a mobile application, website and API that helps people achieve their weight loss goals and find accurate nutrition information. It also offers a weight loss clinic with coaching and medically supported programs. The platform powers global health apps. == History == Fatsecret was founded in 2006 in Melbourne, Australia by Lenny Moses and Rodney Moses. As of 2019, Lenny serves as the company's CEO. The company is known for its calorie counting and meal tracking app, and by April 2016, the company claimed to have 45 million users of its services. In August 2018, a premium version of its app was released. Since August 2009, the company has operated the Fatsecret Platform API, which allows access to its global food and nutrition database. Fatsecret reportedly had 900,000 downloads of its app in January 2020. In an analysis of several Health & Fitness app subcategories for the United States in January 2021, Fatsecret was reported to have the highest 30 day user retention rate of top Calorie Counter + Meal Planner for Weight Loss apps.
Brain technology
Brain technology, or self-learning know-how systems, defines a technology that employs latest findings in neuroscience. [see also neuro implants] The term was first introduced by the Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in Zurich, Switzerland, in the context of the Roboy project. Brain Technology can be employed in robots, know-how management systems and any other application with self-learning capabilities. In particular, Brain Technology applications allow the visualization of the underlying learning architecture often coined as "know-how maps". == Research and applications == The first demonstrations of BC in humans and animals took place in the 1960s when Grey Walter demonstrated use of non-invasively recorded encephalogram (EEG) signals from a human subject to control a slide projector (Graimann et al., 2010). Soon after Jacques J. Vidal coined the term brain–computer interface (BCI) in 1971, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) first starting funding brain–computer interface research and has since funded several brain–computer interface projects. That market is expected to reach a value of $1.72 billion by 2022. Brain–computer interfaces record brain activity, transmit the information out of the body, signal-process the data via algorithms, and convert them into command control signals. In 2012, a landmark study in Nature, led by pioneer Leigh Hochberg, MD, PhD, demonstrated that two people with tetraplegia were able to control robotic arms through thought when connected to the BrainGate neural interface system. The two participants were able to reach for and grasp objects in three-dimensional space, and one participant used the system to serve herself coffee for the first time since becoming paralyzed nearly 15 years prior. And in October 2020, two patients were able to wirelessly control an operating system to text, email, shop and bank using direct thought through the Stentrode brain computer interface (Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery) in a study led by Thomas Oxley. This was the first time a brain–computer interface was implanted via the patient's blood vessels, eliminating the need for open brain surgery. Currently a number of groups are exploring a range of experimental devices using brain–computer interfaces, which have the potential to fundamentally change the way of life for patients with paralysis and a wide range of neurological disorders. These include: as Elon Musk, Facebook, and the University of California in San Francisco. The systems. This technology is also being explored as a neuromodulation device and may ultimately help diagnose and treat a range of brain pathologies, such as epilepsy and Parkinson's disease.
Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)
In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos
Matrix regularization
In the field of statistical learning theory, matrix regularization generalizes notions of vector regularization to cases where the object to be learned is a matrix. The purpose of regularization is to enforce conditions, for example sparsity or smoothness, that can produce stable predictive functions. For example, in the more common vector framework, Tikhonov regularization optimizes over min x ‖ A x − y ‖ 2 + λ ‖ x ‖ 2 {\displaystyle \min _{x}\left\|Ax-y\right\|^{2}+\lambda \left\|x\right\|^{2}} to find a vector x {\displaystyle x} that is a stable solution to the regression problem. When the system is described by a matrix rather than a vector, this problem can be written as min X ‖ A X − Y ‖ 2 + λ ‖ X ‖ 2 , {\displaystyle \min _{X}\left\|AX-Y\right\|^{2}+\lambda \left\|X\right\|^{2},} where the vector norm enforcing a regularization penalty on x {\displaystyle x} has been extended to a matrix norm on X {\displaystyle X} . Matrix regularization has applications in matrix completion, multivariate regression, and multi-task learning. Ideas of feature and group selection can also be extended to matrices, and these can be generalized to the nonparametric case of multiple kernel learning. == Basic definition == Consider a matrix W {\displaystyle W} to be learned from a set of examples, S = ( X i t , y i t ) {\displaystyle S=(X_{i}^{t},y_{i}^{t})} , where i {\displaystyle i} goes from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to n {\displaystyle n} , and t {\displaystyle t} goes from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to T {\displaystyle T} . Let each input matrix X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} be ∈ R D T {\displaystyle \in \mathbb {R} ^{DT}} , and let W {\displaystyle W} be of size D × T {\displaystyle D\times T} . A general model for the output y {\displaystyle y} can be posed as y i t = ⟨ W , X i t ⟩ F , {\displaystyle y_{i}^{t}=\left\langle W,X_{i}^{t}\right\rangle _{F},} where the inner product is the Frobenius inner product. For different applications the matrices X i {\displaystyle X_{i}} will have different forms, but for each of these the optimization problem to infer W {\displaystyle W} can be written as min W ∈ H E ( W ) + R ( W ) , {\displaystyle \min _{W\in {\mathcal {H}}}E(W)+R(W),} where E {\displaystyle E} defines the empirical error for a given W {\displaystyle W} , and R ( W ) {\displaystyle R(W)} is a matrix regularization penalty. The function R ( W ) {\displaystyle R(W)} is typically chosen to be convex and is often selected to enforce sparsity (using ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norms) and/or smoothness (using ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} -norms). Finally, W {\displaystyle W} is in the space of matrices H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} with Frobenius inner product ⟨ … ⟩ F {\displaystyle \langle \dots \rangle _{F}} . == General applications == === Matrix completion === In the problem of matrix completion, the matrix X i t {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}} takes the form X i t = e t ⊗ e i ′ , {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes e_{i}',} where ( e t ) t {\displaystyle (e_{t})_{t}} and ( e i ′ ) i {\displaystyle (e_{i}')_{i}} are the canonical basis in R T {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{T}} and R D {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{D}} . In this case the role of the Frobenius inner product is to select individual elements w i t {\displaystyle w_{i}^{t}} from the matrix W {\displaystyle W} . Thus, the output y {\displaystyle y} is a sampling of entries from the matrix W {\displaystyle W} . The problem of reconstructing W {\displaystyle W} from a small set of sampled entries is possible only under certain restrictions on the matrix, and these restrictions can be enforced by a regularization function. For example, it might be assumed that W {\displaystyle W} is low-rank, in which case the regularization penalty can take the form of a nuclear norm. R ( W ) = λ ‖ W ‖ ∗ = λ ∑ i | σ i | , {\displaystyle R(W)=\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{}=\lambda \sum _{i}\left|\sigma _{i}\right|,} where σ i {\displaystyle \sigma _{i}} , with i {\displaystyle i} from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to min D , T {\displaystyle \min D,T} , are the singular values of W {\displaystyle W} . === Multivariate regression === Models used in multivariate regression are parameterized by a matrix of coefficients. In the Frobenius inner product above, each matrix X {\displaystyle X} is X i t = e t ⊗ x i {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes x_{i}} such that the output of the inner product is the dot product of one row of the input with one column of the coefficient matrix. The familiar form of such models is Y = X W + b {\displaystyle Y=XW+b} Many of the vector norms used in single variable regression can be extended to the multivariate case. One example is the squared Frobenius norm, which can be viewed as an ℓ 2 {\displaystyle \ell ^{2}} -norm acting either entrywise, or on the singular values of the matrix: R ( W ) = λ ‖ W ‖ F 2 = λ ∑ i ∑ j | w i j | 2 = λ Tr ( W ∗ W ) = λ ∑ i σ i 2 . {\displaystyle R(W)=\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{F}^{2}=\lambda \sum _{i}\sum _{j}\left|w_{ij}\right|^{2}=\lambda \operatorname {Tr} \left(W^{}W\right)=\lambda \sum _{i}\sigma _{i}^{2}.} In the multivariate case the effect of regularizing with the Frobenius norm is the same as the vector case; very complex models will have larger norms, and, thus, will be penalized more. === Multi-task learning === The setup for multi-task learning is almost the same as the setup for multivariate regression. The primary difference is that the input variables are also indexed by task (columns of Y {\displaystyle Y} ). The representation with the Frobenius inner product is then X i t = e t ⊗ x i t . {\displaystyle X_{i}^{t}=e_{t}\otimes x_{i}^{t}.} The role of matrix regularization in this setting can be the same as in multivariate regression, but matrix norms can also be used to couple learning problems across tasks. In particular, note that for the optimization problem min W ‖ X W − Y ‖ 2 2 + λ ‖ W ‖ 2 2 {\displaystyle \min _{W}\left\|XW-Y\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda \left\|W\right\|_{2}^{2}} the solutions corresponding to each column of Y {\displaystyle Y} are decoupled. That is, the same solution can be found by solving the joint problem, or by solving an isolated regression problem for each column. The problems can be coupled by adding an additional regularization penalty on the covariance of solutions min W , Ω ‖ X W − Y ‖ 2 2 + λ 1 ‖ W ‖ 2 2 + λ 2 Tr ( W T Ω − 1 W ) {\displaystyle \min _{W,\Omega }\left\|XW-Y\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{1}\left\|W\right\|_{2}^{2}+\lambda _{2}\operatorname {Tr} \left(W^{T}\Omega ^{-1}W\right)} where Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } models the relationship between tasks. This scheme can be used to both enforce similarity of solutions across tasks, and to learn the specific structure of task similarity by alternating between optimizations of W {\displaystyle W} and Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } . When the relationship between tasks is known to lie on a graph, the Laplacian matrix of the graph can be used to couple the learning problems. == Spectral regularization == Regularization by spectral filtering has been used to find stable solutions to problems such as those discussed above by addressing ill-posed matrix inversions (see for example Filter function for Tikhonov regularization). In many cases the regularization function acts on the input (or kernel) to ensure a bounded inverse by eliminating small singular values, but it can also be useful to have spectral norms that act on the matrix that is to be learned. There are a number of matrix norms that act on the singular values of the matrix. Frequently used examples include the Schatten p-norms, with p = 1 or 2. For example, matrix regularization with a Schatten 1-norm, also called the nuclear norm, can be used to enforce sparsity in the spectrum of a matrix. This has been used in the context of matrix completion when the matrix in question is believed to have a restricted rank. In this case the optimization problem becomes: min ‖ W ‖ ∗ subject to W i , j = Y i j . {\displaystyle \min \left\|W\right\|_{}~~{\text{ subject to }}~~W_{i,j}=Y_{ij}.} Spectral Regularization is also used to enforce a reduced rank coefficient matrix in multivariate regression. In this setting, a reduced rank coefficient matrix can be found by keeping just the top n {\displaystyle n} singular values, but this can be extended to keep any reduced set of singular values and vectors. == Structured sparsity == Sparse optimization has become the focus of much research interest as a way to find solutions that depend on a small number of variables (see e.g. the Lasso method). In principle, entry-wise sparsity can be enforced by penalizing the entry-wise ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell ^{0}} -norm of the matrix, but the ℓ 0 {\displaystyle \ell ^{0}} -norm is not convex. In practice this can be implemented by convex relaxation to the ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norm. While entry-wise regularization with an ℓ 1 {\displaystyle \ell ^{1}} -norm will find solutions with a small number of nonzero elements, applying an ℓ 1 {
NRD Cyber Security
NRD Cyber Security is a Lithuanian company that provides cybersecurity solutions, consulting, and other services. The organization specializes in CSIRT and SOC creation, modernization and training. It has helped to establish national and sectorial CSIRTs around the world, including countries, such as Bangladesh, Egypt, Bhutan, Kosovo, Malawi and others. NRD Cyber Security was found in 2013 to provide quality cybersecurity services to nations and organizations. In 2018 it was included in The Deloitte Technology Fast 50 in Europe list. In 2024 it was awarded the #98 place in MSSP Alert Top 250 world's managed security service providers. The company is a member of various cybersecurity organizations, such as Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST), The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE), Unicrons Lt. It is a strategic partner of The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre (GCSCC) at University of Oxford.
Pythia (machine learning)
Pythia is an ancient text restoration model that recovers missing characters from damaged text input using deep neural networks. It was created by Yannis Assael, Thea Sommerschield, and Jonathan Prag, researchers from Google DeepMind and the University of Oxford. To study the society and the history of ancient civilisations, ancient history relies on disciplines such as epigraphy, the study of ancient inscribed texts. Hundreds of thousands of these texts, known as inscriptions, have survived to our day, but are often damaged over the centuries. Illegible parts of the text must then be restored by specialists, called epigraphists, in order to extract meaningful information from the text and use it to expand our knowledge of the context in which the text was written. Pythia takes as input the damaged text, and is trained to return hypothesised restorations of ancient Greek inscriptions, working as an assistive aid for ancient historians. Its neural network architecture works at both the character- and word-level, thereby effectively handling long-term context information, and dealing efficiently with incomplete word representations. Pythia is applicable to any discipline dealing with ancient texts (philology, papyrology, codicology) and can work in any language (ancient or modern).