Ambient awareness

Ambient awareness (AmA) is a term used by social scientists to describe a form of peripheral social awareness through social media. This awareness is propagated from relatively constant contact with one's friends and colleagues via social networking platforms on the Internet. The term essentially defines the sort of omnipresent knowledge one experiences by being a regular user of these media outlets that allow a constant connection with one's social circle. According to Clive Thompson of The New York Times, ambient awareness is "very much like being physically near someone and picking up on mood through the little things; body language, sighs, stray comments". Academic Andreas Kaplan defines ambient awareness as "awareness created through regular and constant reception, and/or exchange of information fragments through social media". Two friends who regularly follow one another's digital information can already be aware of each other's lives without actually being physically present to have had a conversation. == Social == Socially speaking, ambient awareness and social media are products of the new generations who are being born or growing up in the digital age, starting circa 1998 and running to current times. Social media is personal media (what you're doing in the moment, how you feel, a picture of where you are) combined with social communication. Social media is the lattice work for ambient awareness. Without social media the state of ambient awareness cannot exist. Artificial Social Networking Intelligence (ASNI) refers to the application of artificial intelligence within social networking services and social media platforms. It encompasses various technologies and techniques used to automate, personalize, enhance, improve, and synchronize user's interactions and experiences within social networks. ASNI is expected to evolve rapidly, influencing how we interact online and shaping their digital experiences. Transparency, ethical considerations, media influence bias, and user control over data will be crucial to ensure responsible development and positive impact. A significant feature of social media is that it is created by those who also consume it. Mostly, those participating in this phenomenon are adolescents, college age, or young adult professionals. According to Dr. Mimi Ito, a cultural anthropologist and Professor in Residence at the University of California at Irvine, the mobile device is the greatest proxy device used to create and distribute Social Media. She reportedly states that "teenagers capture and produce their own media, and stay in constant ambient contact with each other..." using mobile devices. Usually while doing this they are consuming other forms of media such as music or video content via their smart phones, tablets, or other similar devices. Effectively this has led social scientists to believe that learning and multitasking will have a new face as the products of the digital generation enter the work force and begin to integrate their learning methods into the standard preexisting business models of today. Professors Kaplan and Haenlein see ambient awareness as one of the major reasons for the success of such microblogging sites as Twitter. == Origins == The earliest available technology that could be used for constant social contact is the cell phone. For the first time, people could be contacted readily and at will beyond the confines of their work or homes. Then later, with the additional service of texting, one can see the somewhat primitive form of the status update. Since the text message only allows for 160 characters to transmit pertinent information it paved the way for the status update as we know it today. The transition from only having a few points of regular long distance contact, to being constantly available via cell phone, is what primed society for social networking websites. Perhaps the first instance where these websites created the possibility of larger scale ambient awareness was when Facebook installed the news feed. The news feed automatically sends compiled information on all of a users contacts activities directly to them so that they can access all of the happenings in their world from one location. For the first time, becoming someone's Facebook friend was the equivalent of subscribing to a feed of their daily minutiae. Since this innovation, a new wave of micro-blogging services have emerged, such as Twitter or Tumblr. Although these services have often been criticized as containing seemingly meaningless snippets of information, when a follower gathers a certain amount of information, they begin to obtain an ambient understanding of who they are following. This has led to the mass usage of social media as not only a social tool but also as a marketing and business tool. == Uses in marketing == Websites such as Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, and Myspace, among many others, have been used by people in all forms of business to create a closer digital/ambient bond with their clientele base. This is most notably seen in the music industry where social media networking has become the mainstay of all advertising for independent and major artists. The effect of this type of ambient marketing is that the consumer begins to get a sense of the artist's life style and personality. In this way social media outlets and ambient awareness have managed to tighten the gap between consumers and producers in all areas of business. == Uses in business processes == As web-based collaboration tools and social project management suites proliferate, the addition of activity streams to those products help to create business context-specific ambient awareness, and produce a new class of products, such as social project management platforms.

Richardson–Lucy deconvolution

The Richardson–Lucy algorithm, also known as Lucy–Richardson deconvolution, is an iterative procedure for recovering an underlying image that has been blurred by a known point spread function. It was named after William Richardson and Leon B. Lucy, who described it independently. == Description == When an image is produced using an optical system and detected using photographic film, a charge-coupled device or a CMOS sensor, for example, it is inevitably blurred, with an ideal point source not appearing as a point but being spread out into what is known as the point spread function. Extended sources can be decomposed into the sum of many individual point sources, thus the observed image can be represented in terms of a transition matrix p operating on an underlying image: d i = ∑ j p i , j u j , {\displaystyle d_{i}=\sum _{j}p_{i,j}u_{j},} where u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} is the intensity of the underlying image at pixel j {\displaystyle j} , and d i {\displaystyle d_{i}} is the detected intensity at pixel i {\displaystyle i} . In general, a matrix whose elements are p i , j {\displaystyle p_{i,j}} describes the portion of light from source pixel j that is detected in pixel i. In most good optical systems (or in general, linear systems that are described as shift-invariant) the transfer function p can be expressed simply in terms of the spatial offset between the source pixel j and the observation pixel i: p i , j = P ( i − j ) , {\displaystyle p_{i,j}=P(i-j),} where P ( Δ i ) {\displaystyle P(\Delta i)} is called a point spread function. In that case the above equation becomes a convolution. This has been written for one spatial dimension, but most imaging systems are two-dimensional, with the source, detected image, and point spread function all having two indices. So a two-dimensional detected image is a convolution of the underlying image with a two-dimensional point spread function P ( Δ x , Δ y ) {\displaystyle P(\Delta x,\Delta y)} plus added detection noise. In order to estimate u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} given the observed d i {\displaystyle d_{i}} and a known P ( Δ i x , Δ j y ) {\displaystyle P(\Delta i_{x},\Delta j_{y})} , the following iterative procedure is employed in which the estimate of u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} (called u ^ j ( t ) {\displaystyle {\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t)}} ) for iteration number t is updated as follows: u ^ j ( t + 1 ) = u ^ j ( t ) ∑ i d i c i p i j , {\displaystyle {\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t+1)}={\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t)}\sum _{i}{\frac {d_{i}}{c_{i}}}p_{ij},} where c i = ∑ j p i j u ^ j ( t ) , {\displaystyle c_{i}=\sum _{j}p_{ij}{\hat {u}}_{j}^{(t)},} and ∑ j p i j = 1 {\displaystyle \sum _{j}p_{ij}=1} is assumed. It has been shown empirically that if this iteration converges, it converges to the maximum likelihood solution for u j {\displaystyle u_{j}} . Writing this more generally for two (or more) dimensions in terms of convolution with a point spread function P: u ^ ( t + 1 ) = u ^ ( t ) ⋅ ( d u ^ ( t ) ⊗ P ⊗ P ∗ ) , {\displaystyle {\hat {u}}^{(t+1)}={\hat {u}}^{(t)}\cdot \left({\frac {d}{{\hat {u}}^{(t)}\otimes P}}\otimes P^{}\right),} where the division and multiplication are element-wise, ⊗ {\displaystyle \otimes } indicates a 2D convolution, and P ∗ {\displaystyle P^{}} is the mirrored point spread function, or the inverse Fourier transform of the Hermitian transpose of the optical transfer function. In problems where the point spread function p i j {\displaystyle p_{ij}} is not known a priori, a modification of the Richardson–Lucy algorithm has been proposed, in order to accomplish blind deconvolution. == Derivation == In the context of fluorescence microscopy, the probability of measuring a set of number of photons (or digitalization counts proportional to detected light) m = [ m 0 , … , m K ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} =[m_{0},\dots ,m_{K}]} for expected values E = [ E 0 , … , E K ] {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =[E_{0},\dots ,E_{K}]} for a detector with K + 1 {\displaystyle K+1} pixels is given by P ( m ∣ E ) = ∏ i K Poisson ⁡ ( E i ) = ∏ i K E i m i e − E i m i ! . {\displaystyle P(\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )=\prod _{i}^{K}\operatorname {Poisson} (E_{i})=\prod _{i}^{K}{\frac {E_{i}^{m_{i}}e^{-E_{i}}}{m_{i}!}}.} Since in the context of maximum-likelihood estimation the aim is to locate the maximum of the likelihood function without concern for its absolute value, it is convenient to work with ln ⁡ ( P ) {\displaystyle \ln(P)} : ln ⁡ P ( m ∣ E ) = ∑ i K [ ( m i ln ⁡ E i − E i ) − ln ⁡ ( m i ! ) ] . {\displaystyle \ln P(\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )=\sum _{i}^{K}[(m_{i}\ln E_{i}-E_{i})-\ln(m_{i}!)].} Moreover, since ln ⁡ ( m i ! ) {\displaystyle \ln(m_{i}!)} is a constant, it does not give any additional information regarding the position of the maximum, so consider α ( m ∣ E ) = ∑ i K [ m i ln ⁡ E i − E i ] , {\displaystyle \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )=\sum _{i}^{K}[m_{i}\ln E_{i}-E_{i}],} where α {\displaystyle \alpha } is something that shares the same maximum position as P ( m ∣ E ) {\displaystyle P(\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} )} . Now consider that E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } comes from a ground truth x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } and a measurement H {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} } which is assumed to be linear. Then E = H x , {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} =\mathbf {H} \mathbf {x} ,} where a matrix multiplication is implied. This can also be written in the form E m = ∑ n K H m n x n , {\displaystyle E_{m}=\sum _{n}^{K}H_{mn}x_{n},} where it can be seen how H {\displaystyle H} mixes or blurs the ground truth. It can also be shown that the derivative of an element of E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } , ( E i ) {\displaystyle (E_{i})} with respect to some other element of x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} can be written as It is easy to see this by writing a matrix H {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} } of, say, 5 × 5 and two arrays E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } of 5 elements and check it. This last equation can be interpreted as how much one element of x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } , say element i {\displaystyle i} , influences the other elements j ≠ i {\displaystyle j\neq i} (and of course the case i = j {\displaystyle i=j} is also taken into account). For example, in a typical case an element of the ground truth x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } will influence nearby elements in E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } but not the very distant ones (a value of 0 {\displaystyle 0} is expected on those matrix elements). Now, the key and arbitrary step: x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } is not known but may be estimated by x ^ {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {x} }}} . Let's call x ^ old {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {x} }}_{\text{old}}} and x ^ new {\displaystyle {\hat {\mathbf {x} }}_{\text{new}}} the estimated ground truths while using the RL algorithm, where the hat symbol is used to distinguish ground truth from estimator of the ground truth where ∂ ∂ x {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial }{\partial \mathbf {x} }}} stands for a K {\displaystyle K} -dimensional gradient. Performing the partial derivative of α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))} yields the following expression: ∂ α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) ∂ x j = ∂ ∂ x j ∑ i K [ m i ln ⁡ E i − E i ] = ∑ i K [ m i E i ∂ ∂ x j E i − ∂ ∂ x j E i ] = ∑ i K ∂ E i ∂ x j [ m i E i − 1 ] . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))}{\partial x_{j}}}={\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{j}}}\sum _{i}^{K}[m_{i}\ln E_{i}-E_{i}]=\sum _{i}^{K}\left[{\frac {m_{i}}{E_{i}}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{j}}}E_{i}-{\frac {\partial }{\partial x_{j}}}E_{i}\right]=\sum _{i}^{K}{\frac {\partial E_{i}}{\partial x_{j}}}\left[{\frac {m_{i}}{E_{i}}}-1\right].} By substituting (1), it follows that ∂ α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) ∂ x j = ∑ i K H i j [ m i E i − 1 ] . {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))}{\partial x_{j}}}=\sum _{i}^{K}H_{ij}\left[{\frac {m_{i}}{E_{i}}}-1\right].} Note that H j i T = H i j {\displaystyle H_{ji}^{T}=H_{ij}} by the definition of a matrix transpose. And hence Since this equation is true for all j {\displaystyle j} spanning all the elements from 1 {\displaystyle 1} to K {\displaystyle K} , these K {\displaystyle K} equations may be compactly rewritten as a single vectorial equation ∂ α ( m ∣ E ( x ) ) ∂ x = H T [ m E − 1 ] , {\displaystyle {\frac {\partial \alpha (\mathbf {m} \mid \mathbf {E} (\mathbf {x} ))}{\partial \mathbf {x} }}=\mathbf {H} ^{T}\left[{\frac {\mathbf {m} }{\mathbf {E} }}-\mathbf {1} \right],} where H T {\displaystyle \mathbf {H} ^{T}} is a matrix, and m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } , E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } and 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } are vectors. Now, as a seemingly arbitrary but key step, let where 1 {\displaystyle \mathbf {1} } is a vector of ones of size K {\displaystyle K} (same as m {\displaystyle \mathbf {m} } , E {\displaystyle \mathbf {E} } and x {\displaystyle \mathbf {x} } ), and the d

Concurrent MetateM

Concurrent MetateM is a multi-agent language in which each agent is programmed using a set of (augmented) temporal logic specifications of the behaviour it should exhibit. These specifications are executed directly to generate the behaviour of the agent. As a result, there is no risk of invalidating the logic as with systems where logical specification must first be translated to a lower-level implementation. The root of the MetateM concept is Gabbay's separation theorem; any arbitrary temporal logic formula can be rewritten in a logically equivalent past → future form. Execution proceeds by a process of continually matching rules against a history, and firing those rules when antecedents are satisfied. Any instantiated future-time consequents become commitments which must subsequently be satisfied, iteratively generating a model for the formula made up of the program rules. == Temporal Connectives == The Temporal Connectives of Concurrent MetateM can divided into two categories, as follows: Strict past time connectives: '●' (weak last), '◎' (strong last), '◆' (was), '■' (heretofore), 'S' (since), and 'Z' (zince, or weak since). Present and future time connectives: '◯' (next), '◇' (sometime), '□' (always), 'U' (until), and 'W' (unless). The connectives {◎,●,◆,■,◯,◇,□} are unary; the remainder are binary. === Strict past time connectives === ==== Weak last ==== ●ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ●ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is satisfied despite there being no actual previous time. Hence "weak" last. ==== Strong last ==== ◎ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in the previous time. If ◎ρ is interpreted at the beginning of time, it is not satisfied because there is no actual previous time. Hence "strong" last. ==== Was ==== ◆ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in any previous moment in time. ==== Heretofore ==== ■ρ is satisfied now if ρ was true in every previous moment in time. ==== Since ==== ρSψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment. ==== Zince, or weak since ==== ρZψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any previous moment and ρ is true at every moment after that moment) OR ψ has not happened in the past. === Present and future time connectives === ==== Next ==== ◯ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true in the next moment in time. ==== Sometime ==== ◇ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now or in any future moment in time. ==== Always ==== □ρ is satisfied now if ρ is true now and in every future moment in time. ==== Until ==== ρUψ is satisfied now if ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior. ==== Unless ==== ρWψ is satisfied now if (ψ is true at any future moment and ρ is true at every moment prior) OR ψ does not happen in the future.

Emergent algorithm

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

Algorithmic probability

In algorithmic information theory, algorithmic probability, also known as Solomonoff probability, is a mathematical method of assigning a prior probability to a given observation. It was invented by Ray Solomonoff in the 1960s. It is used in inductive inference theory and analyses of algorithms. In his general theory of inductive inference, Solomonoff uses the method together with Bayes' rule to obtain probabilities of prediction for an algorithm's future outputs. In the mathematical formalism used, the observations have the form of finite binary strings viewed as outputs of Turing machines, and the universal prior is a probability distribution over the set of finite binary strings calculated from a probability distribution over programs (that is, inputs to a universal Turing machine). The prior is universal in the Turing-computability sense, i.e. no string has zero probability. It is not computable, but it can be approximated. Formally, the probability P {\displaystyle P} is not a probability and it is not computable. It is only "lower semi-computable" and a "semi-measure". By "semi-measure", it means that 0 ≤ ∑ x P ( x ) < 1 {\displaystyle 0\leq \sum _{x}P(x)<1} . That is, the "probability" does not actually sum up to one, unlike actual probabilities. This is because some inputs to the Turing machine causes it to never halt, which means the probability mass allocated to those inputs is lost. By "lower semi-computable", it means there is a Turing machine that, given an input string x {\displaystyle x} , can print out a sequence y 1 < y 2 < ⋯ {\displaystyle y_{1}

TipTop Technologies

TipTop Technologies is a real-time web and social search engine with a platform for semantic analysis of natural language. Tip-Top Search provides results capturing individual and group sentiment, opinions, and experiences there from the content of various sorts such as real-time messages from Twitter or consumer product reviews on Amazon.com. TipTop Technologies and ITC Infotech collaborated to create a search interface suitable for both enterprise and consumer applications. Tip-Top's products are part of the "emerging Web 3.0 applications which use semantic technologies to augment the underlying Web system's functionalities." Their main product is 360, an AI tool that incorporates multiple AI applications under one wing. Jonathan AlBright professor at Elon University, found videos generated by TipTop Technologies software on YouTube in his research into artificial intelligence, described it as AI-generated "fake news". Through semantic analysis of large data sets, TipTop gleaned behavioral insights from Tweets around events like Halloween, Thanksgiving, Holiday Gifting, the Super Bowl, and the Oscar Nominees for the Academy Awards coverage. Sentiment analysis, concept trend tracking, and real-time market research are other applications included in the TipTop Search product. TipTop's insight engine solves the problem of real-time data noise, and its ability to "sort the 'good tweets' from the 'bad tweets' when it comes to a product, service, or a region..." In addition, products like TipTop Shopping with customizable search widgets bring together consumer reviews, social search, and sentiment analysis enabling product comparisons across attributes like the overall value and aiding purchasing decisions through user-driven product tips and pits. TipTop Finance adds another complexity to real-time search results by incorporating corporate sentiment, company stock tickers, and social media into TipTop's existing social search platform. Additional success applying semantic technologies has been with polling, "if you compare these Gallup results with TipTop, a sentiment engine based on Twitter, the results are not way off. It does surprise you but it tells me that sentiment analysis in case of public opinion about a burning social issue or a famous personality is relatively easier." With the increasing amount of unstructured, opinion-oriented, and user-generated content available on the Web, TipTop's technology aims to make sense of all this data, and deliver it in a useful way for consumer and enterprise users alike. TipTop Technologies is a privately held company with its headquarters in the San Francisco Bay Area, and team members are located globally.

The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis

The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis is a report authored by James van Geelen and Alap Shah and published by Citrini Research in February 2026, on the impact of artificial intelligence on humanity's future. Written in the form of a scenario analysis, it was viewed millions of times online and reportedly caused a fall in the stock market prices of major tech and financial firms. It also received criticism among others, for its allegedly flawed economic logic. The 'thought exercise', as the authors called it, painted a gloomy picture for the near future, where outputs keep growing while consumer's ability to spend collapses. "...driven by ai agents that don’t sleep, take sick days or require health insurance”, "outputs that are shown in national accounts increases, "but never circulates through the real economy"(which the report calls 'Ghost GDP'), the authors argued. In other words, the authors predict a scenario where the owners of the AI firms will accumulate a vast fortune but there will be scant demand from consumers as AI would cause massive unemployment. The authors caution the reader that what they make is a scenario and not a prediction. In the scenario they visualise, any service whose value proposition is “I will navigate complexity that you find tedious” is getting disrupted. The reports argues that the unique ability of human beings to analyse, decide, create, persuade, and coordinate was “the thing that could not be replicated at scale,” and call the historical scarcity of this precious entity 'friction'. When this friction becomes zero, a gamut of changes occur which then triggers a cascading of changes across the economy. ”Travel booking platforms are an early casualty; Financial advice. tax prep., and routine legal work follow suit. National unemployment rate go as high 10.2% and the S&P 500 goes for a massive 38% peak-to-trough crash. In contrast to the previous technological revolutions the high-earning professionals suffers more and get forced to take up roles in the gig economy. Labour supply becomes abundant and this cuts wages all across the economy. The dent in income for the employees then affects other sectors of the economy such as the residential mortgage market. The losses for the software companies triggers loan defaults and heralds peril for the private credit sector.