AutoGPT is an open-source autonomous software agent that uses OpenAI's large language models, such as GPT-4, to attempt to achieve a goal specified by a user in natural language. Unlike chatbots that require continuous user commands, AutoGPT works autonomously by breaking the main goal into smaller sub-tasks and using tools like web browsing and file management to complete them. Released in March 2023, the project quickly gained popularity on GitHub and social media, with users creating agents for tasks like software development, market research, and content creation. One notable experiment, ChaosGPT, was tasked with destroying humanity, which brought mainstream attention to the technology's potential. However, AutoGPT is known for significant limitations, including a tendency to get stuck in loops, hallucinate information, and incur high operational costs due to its reliance on paid APIs. == Background == AutoGPT was released on March 30, 2023, by Toran Bruce Richards, the founder of video game company Significant Gravitas Ltd. It was one of the first widely accessible applications to showcase the autonomous capabilities of GPT-4, which had been released weeks earlier. Richards's goal was to create a model that could respond to real-time feedback and pursue objectives with a long-term outlook without needing constant human intervention. The application operates by prompting a user to define an agent's name, role, and main objective, including up to five sub-goals to achieve it. AutoGPT then works independently to reach its objective. The project is publicly available on GitHub but requires users to install it in a development environment like Docker and have a paid OpenAI account to obtain the necessary API key. In October 2023, the project's parent company, Significant Gravitas Ltd., raised $12 million in venture funding to support further development. == Capabilities == The overarching capability of AutoGPT is the breaking down of a large task into various sub-tasks without the need for user input. These sub-tasks are then chained together and performed sequentially to yield a larger result as originally laid out by the user input. One of the distinguishing features of AutoGPT is its ability to connect to the internet. This allows for up-to-date information retrieval to help complete tasks. In addition, AutoGPT maintains short-term memory for the current task, which allows it to provide context to subsequent sub-tasks needed to achieve the larger goal. Another feature is its ability to store and organize files so users can better structure their data for future analysis and extension. AutoGPT is also multimodal, which means that it can take in both text and images as input. With these features, AutoGPT is claimed to be capable of automating workflows, analyzing data, and coming up with new suggestions. == Applications == === Software === AutoGPT can be used to develop software applications from scratch. AutoGPT can also debug code and generate test cases. Observers suggest that AutoGPT's ability to write, debug, test, and edit code may extend to AutoGPT's own source code, enabling self-improvement. === Business === AutoGPT can be used to do market research, analyze investments, research products and write product reviews, create a business plan or improve operations, and create content such as a blog or podcast. One user has used AutoGPT to conduct product research and write a summary on the best headphones. Another user has used AutoGPT to summarize recent news events and prepare an outline for a podcast. === Other === AutoGPT was used to create ChefGPT, an AI agent able to independently explore the internet to generate and save unique recipes. AutoGPT was also used to create ChaosGPT, an AI agent tasked to “destroy humanity, establish global dominance, cause chaos and destruction, control humanity through manipulation, and attain immortality”. ChaosGPT reportedly researched nuclear weapons and tweeted disparagingly about humankind. == Limitations == AutoGPT is susceptible to frequent mistakes, primarily because it relies on its own feedback, which can compound errors. In contrast, non-autonomous models can be corrected by users overseeing their outputs. Furthermore, AutoGPT has a tendency to hallucinate or to present false or misleading information as fact when responding. AutoGPT can be constrained by the cost associated with running it as its recursive nature requires it to continually call the OpenAI API on which it is built. Every step required in one of AutoGPT's tasks requires a corresponding call to GPT-4 at a cost of at least about $0.03 for every 1000 tokens used for inputs and $0.06 for every 1000 tokens for output when choosing the cheapest option. For reference, 1000 tokens roughly result in 750 words. Another limitation is AutoGPT's tendency to get stuck in infinite loops. Developers believe that this is a result of AutoGPT's inability to remember, as it is unaware of what it has already done and repeatedly attempts the same subtask without end. Andrej Karpathy, co-founder of OpenAI which creates GPT-4, further explains that it is AutoGPT's “finite context window” that can limit its performance and cause it to “go off the rails”. Like other autonomous agents, AutoGPT is prone to distraction and unable to focus on its objective due to its lack of long-term memory, leading to unpredictable and unintended behavior. == Reception == AutoGPT became the top trending repository on GitHub after its release and has since repeatedly trended on Twitter. In April 2023, Avram Piltch wrote for Tom's Hardware that AutoGPT 'might be too autonomous to be useful,' as it did not ask questions to clarify requirements or allow corrective interventions by users. Piltch nonetheless noted that such tools have "a ton of potential" and should improve with better language models and further development. Malcolm McMillan from Tom's Guide mentioned that AutoGPT may not be better than ChatGPT for tasks involving conversation, as ChatGPT is well-suited for situations in which advice, rather than task completion, is sought. Will Knight from Wired wrote that AutoGPT is not a foolproof task-completion tool. When given a test task of finding a public figure's email address, he noted that it was not able to accurately find the email address. Clara Shih, Salesforce Service Cloud CEO commented that "AutoGPT illustrates the power and unknown risks of generative AI," and that due to usage risks, enterprises should include a human in the loop when using such technologies. Performance is reportedly enhanced when using AutoGPT with GPT-4 compared to GPT-3.5. For example, one reviewer who tested it on a task of finding the best laptops on the market with pros and cons found that AutoGPT with GPT-4 created a more comprehensive report than one by GPT 3.5.
Apache Parquet
Apache Parquet is a free and open-source column-oriented data storage format in the Apache Hadoop ecosystem inspired by Google Dremel interactive ad-hoc query system for analysis of read-only nested data. It is similar to RCFile and ORC, the other columnar-storage file formats in Hadoop, and is compatible with most of the data processing frameworks around Hadoop. It provides data compression and encoding schemes with enhanced performance to handle complex data in bulk. == History == The open-source project to build Apache Parquet began as a joint effort between Twitter and Cloudera using the record shredding and assembly algorithm as described in Google's Dremel. Parquet was designed as an improvement on the Trevni columnar storage format created by Doug Cutting, the creator of Hadoop. The name 'parquet' (lit. 'small compartment') refers to a style of decorative flooring and was chosen to "evoke the bottom layer of a database with an interesting layout". The first version, Apache Parquet 1.0, was released in July 2013. Since April 27, 2015, Apache Parquet has been a top-level Apache Software Foundation (ASF)-sponsored project. == Features == Apache Parquet is implemented using the record-shredding and assembly algorithm, which accommodates the complex data structures that can be used to store data. The values in each column are stored in contiguous memory locations, providing the following benefits: Column-wise compression is efficient in storage space Encoding and compression techniques specific to the type of data in each column can be used Queries that fetch specific column values need not read the entire row, thus improving performance Apache Parquet is implemented using the Apache Thrift framework, which increases its flexibility; it can work with a number of programming languages like C++, Java, Python, PHP, etc. As of August 2015, Parquet supports the big-data-processing frameworks including Apache Hive, Apache Drill, Apache Impala, Apache Crunch, Apache Pig, Cascading, Presto and Apache Spark. It is one of the external data formats used by the pandas Python data manipulation and analysis library. == Compression and encoding == In Parquet, compression is performed column by column, which enables different encoding schemes to be used for text and integer data. This strategy also keeps the door open for newer and better encoding schemes to be implemented as they are invented. Parquet supports various compression formats: snappy, gzip, LZO, brotli, zstd, and LZ4. === Dictionary encoding === Parquet has an automatic dictionary encoding enabled dynamically for data with a small number of unique values (i.e. below 105) that enables significant compression and boosts processing speed. === Bit packing === Storage of integers is usually done with dedicated 32 or 64 bits per integer. For small integers, packing multiple integers into the same space makes storage more efficient. === Run-length encoding (RLE) === To optimize storage of multiple occurrences of the same value, run-length encoding is used, which is where a single value is stored once along with the number of occurrences. Parquet implements a hybrid of bit packing and RLE, in which the encoding switches based on which produces the best compression results. This strategy works well for certain types of integer data and combines well with dictionary encoding. == Cloud Storage and Data Lakes == Parquet is widely used as the underlying file format in modern cloud-based data lake architectures. Cloud storage systems such as Amazon S3, Azure Data Lake Storage, and Google Cloud Storage commonly store data in Parquet format due to its efficient columnar representation and retrieval capabilities. Data lakehouse frameworks—including Apache Iceberg, Delta Lake, and Apache Hudi —build an additional metadata layer on top of Parquet files to support features such as schema evolution, time-travel queries, and ACID-compliant transactions. In these architectures, Parquet files serve as the immutable storage layer while the table formats manage data versioning and transactional integrity. == Comparison == Apache Parquet is comparable to RCFile and Optimized Row Columnar (ORC) file formats — all three fall under the category of columnar data storage within the Hadoop ecosystem. They all have better compression and encoding with improved read performance at the cost of slower writes. In addition to these features, Apache Parquet supports limited schema evolution, i.e., the schema can be modified according to the changes in the data. It also provides the ability to add new columns and merge schemas that do not conflict. Apache Arrow is designed as an in-memory complement to on-disk columnar formats like Parquet and ORC. The Arrow and Parquet projects include libraries that allow for reading and writing between the two formats. == Implementations == Known implementations of Parquet include:
General-Purpose AI Code of Practice
The General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (GPAI CoP) is a compliance tool released by the European Commission on 10 July 2025 to support compliance with the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act). It provides operational guidance for providers of general-purpose AI models, particularly in relation to Articles 53 and 55 of the AI Act, which entered into application on 2 August 2025. The Code is organised into three chapters (Transparency, Copyright, and Safety and Security) and outlines how providers can meet the Act's relevant obligations. Although non-binding, providers can rely on adherence to the Code, meaning that EU regulators will assume that providers following the Code meet the corresponding legal requirements of the AI Act. As such, signatories to the Code will benefit from reduced administrative burdens and increased legal certainty compared to providers that prove compliance in other ways. While adherence to the Code is voluntary, compliance with the AI Act is not. == Background == The EU AI Act, adopted in 2024, established a risk-based regulatory regime for artificial intelligence in the European Union. The rationale for the GPAI CoP stems from Article 56 of the AI Act, which empowers the EU AI Office to develop a voluntary rulebook to guide how AI model providers can meet their legal obligations – specifically those found in Articles 53 and 55. Under Articles 53 and 55, developers of general-purpose AI models whose training compute exceeds 1023 floating-point operations (FLOPs) and that are placed on the EU market must meet transparency obligations and put in place a policy for EU copyright law. Models trained with more than 1025 FLOPs are classified as presenting systemic risk and are subject to enhanced safety requirements. The Commission may also designate a model as presenting systemic risk if it has equivalent impact or capabilities (Annex XIII criteria), even below that compute figure. Because the AI Act is relatively vague on how model providers should implement these requirements, the Code is meant to help by detailing processes and practices for compliance. == Drafting process == The development of the GPAI CoP was drawn up by 13 independent experts and involved four thematic working groups: Transparency & Copyright, Risk assessment for systemic risk, Technical risk mitigation for systemic risk, and Governance risk mitigation for systemic risk. Each group was coordinated by the European Union Artificial Intelligence Office (EU AI Office), drawing on contributions from nearly 1,000 stakeholders, including AI developers, academics, civil society organisations, national authorities, and international observers. The Code underwent three earlier iterations in November 2024, December 2024, and March 2025, before the final version was published on 10 July 2025, more than two months later than initially planned. The GPAI CoP will likely be updated continuously by the EU AI Office, alongside other tools such as the training data summary template. == Signatories == Among U.S.-based technology companies, Amazon, Anthropic, Google, IBM, Microsoft, and OpenAI have signed the GPAI CoP. xAI, founded by Elon Musk, has signed only one of the three chapters, namely the safety and security chapter. Prominent European AI companies that have signed include Aleph Alpha and Mistral AI. The European Commission maintains an updated list of signatories. As of January 2026, Meta is the most notable company that has declined to sign the Code. Major Chinese AI companies, such as Alibaba, Baidu or Deepseek, have also not signed. Providers that do not sign the GPAI CoP will still have to adhere to the binding requirements of the EU AI Act. The European Commission has indicated that it may take tougher action against companies that didn't sign the Code. == Transparency and Copyright chapters == The first two chapters of the GPAI CoP address transparency and copyright compliance and apply to all GPAI providers. They offer a way to demonstrate compliance with their obligations under Article 53 AI Act. The Transparency chapter addresses the documentation of a model's capabilities, limitations, and points of contact, and expects providers to make key documentation available to downstream providers. Signatories must also publish summaries of the content used to train their models. In the Copyright chapter, Signatories commit to follow a policy that aligns with EU copyright law. For example, they commit to mitigating the risk of copyright-infringing output. == Safety and Security chapter == The Safety and Security chapter is the most extensive chapter of the Code, and it applies to GPAI models with systemic risk, meaning it's only relevant to the small number of providers of the most advanced models. It specifies how Signatories commit to meeting Article 55(1) obligations to: Conduct model evaluations to identify systemic risks Assess and mitigate those risks Track and report serious incidents Ensure the cyber and physical security of their models The chapter outlines a comprehensive risk management process that must be applied before major deployment decisions, such as releasing a new systemic-risk GPAI model in the EU market, or substantially updating an existing one. Signatories commit to identifying systemic risks of their model, analysing and evaluating them, determining whether risk levels are acceptable, and implementing mitigation measures if necessary. This process should be repeated until models achieve an acceptable level of risk across all identified risks. === Risk identification === Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating at least four “specified” categories of systemic risk: CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) Loss of control Cyber offence Harmful manipulation They are also expected to identify other systemic risks to public health, safety, and fundamental rights. The Code instructs providers to consider model capabilities, propensities, and affordances in this identification. Signatories commit to developing risk scenarios illustrating how identified risks could materialise in real-world conditions. === Risk analysis and risk evaluation === After identifying potential systemic risks, Signatories commit to analysing and evaluating the risks in order to determine whether they are acceptable or not, drawing on scientific literature, training data analysis, incident databases, expert consultation, and other sources. They also commit to conducting state-of-the-art model evaluations such as benchmarking, red teaming, and human uplift studies, targeting each risk. The risk analysis process is interconnected: insights from risk modelling should inform model evaluation design, while post-market monitoring should feed back into ongoing analysis. Signatories commit to ultimately estimating the likelihood and severity of each systemic risk. ==== Independent external model evaluations ==== Appendix 3.5 of the Safety and Security chapter requires signatories to ensure that independent external evaluators conduct model evaluations. Signatories may claim an exemption from this requirement only if they can demonstrate that their model is “similarly safe” to another model that has already been shown to comply with the Code, or if they are unable to appoint an appropriately qualified evaluator. The determination of “similarly safe” is based on comparable performance on benchmarks and the similarity of other model characteristics, such as their architecture. The CoP acknowledges that this kind of information is typically available only for models by the same provider, or potentially for open-weights or open-source models. === Risk acceptance criteria === The Code requires providers to compare estimated risks against predefined acceptance criteria, which must be measurable, based on model capabilities, and defined preemptively. While providers get to determine the level of risk they deem acceptable themselves, the pre-defined criteria and acceptance thresholds ensure providers cannot adjust their level of tolerance flexibly ahead of deployment decisions. Only if all risks are below acceptable levels should a model be deployed. === Continuous risk management and governance === The Code mandates ongoing risk management throughout the model lifecycle, including light-touch evaluations, continuous mitigation, post-market monitoring, and incident tracking and reporting. It further requires organisational governance structures assigning responsibility for risk management and expects providers to promote a “healthy risk culture,” including informing employees about the whistleblower protection policy, allowing internal challenges of decisions concerning systemic risk management, and committing to not retaliating against employees who disclose concerns about systemic risks to oversight authorities. === Documentation and transparency === Signatories commit to creating two types of documentation: Safety and Security Frame
Computational theory of mind
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri
AI Futures Project
The AI Futures Project is a nonprofit research organization based in the United States that specializes in forecasting the development and societal impact of advanced artificial intelligence. The organization is best known for its 2025 scenario forecast, AI 2027, which examines the potential near-term emergence of artificial general intelligence (AGI) and its possible global consequences. == History == The AI Futures Project was founded in 2025 by Daniel Kokotajlo, a former researcher in the governance division of OpenAI. Kokotajlo resigned from OpenAI in April 2024, expressing concerns that the company prioritized rapid product development over AI safety and was advancing without sufficient safeguards. He founded the nonprofit to conduct independent forecasting and policy research. The organization is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in the United States and is funded through donations. It operates with a small research staff and network of advisors drawn from fields including AI policy, forecasting, and risk analysis. == Activities == The mission of the AI Futures Project is to develop detailed scenario forecasts of the trajectory of advanced AI systems to inform policymakers, researchers, and the public. In addition to written reports, the group has conducted tabletop exercises and workshops based on its scenarios, involving participants from academia, technology, and public policy. == AI 2027 == In April 2025, the AI Futures Project released AI 2027, a detailed scenario forecast describing possible developments in AI between 2025 and 2027. The report was authored by Daniel Kokotajlo along with Eli Lifland, Thomas Larsen, and Romeo Dean, with editing assistance from blogger Scott Alexander. The scenario depicts very rapid progress in AI capabilities, including the development of autonomous AI systems capable of recursive self-improvement. AI 2027 presents two alternative endings: one in which international competition over advanced AI leads to catastrophic loss of human control, and another in which coordinated global action slows down development and averts imminent disaster. The authors emphasize that the narratives are hypothetical and intended as planning tools rather than literal forecasts. == Reception == AI 2027 attracted attention from technology journalists and AI researchers. Some commentators praised the report for its level of detail and its usefulness as a strategic planning exercise, while others criticized the scenario as implausibly aggressive in its timelines. The report was cited in policy discussions about AI governance. U.S. Vice President JD Vance reportedly read AI 2027 and referenced its warnings in conversations about international AI coordination. More recent reporting noted that the authors of AI 2027 had publicly revised some of their timelines. According to Kokotajlo, developments since the report's original publication suggested a slower path toward fully autonomous AI research systems than initially forecasted.
Data Science and Predictive Analytics
The first edition of the textbook Data Science and Predictive Analytics: Biomedical and Health Applications using R, authored by Ivo D. Dinov, was published in August 2018 by Springer. The second edition of the book was printed in 2023. This textbook covers some of the core mathematical foundations, computational techniques, and artificial intelligence approaches used in data science research and applications. By using the statistical computing platform R and a broad range of biomedical case-studies, the 23 chapters of the book first edition provide explicit examples of importing, exporting, processing, modeling, visualizing, and interpreting large, multivariate, incomplete, heterogeneous, longitudinal, and incomplete datasets (big data). == Structure == === First edition table of contents === The first edition of the Data Science and Predictive Analytics (DSPA) textbook is divided into the following 23 chapters, each progressively building on the previous content. === Second edition table of contents === The significantly reorganized revised edition of the book (2023) expands and modernizes the presented mathematical principles, computational methods, data science techniques, model-based machine learning and model-free artificial intelligence algorithms. The 14 chapters of the new edition start with an introduction and progressively build foundational skills to naturally reach biomedical applications of deep learning. Introduction Basic Visualization and Exploratory Data Analytics Linear Algebra, Matrix Computing, and Regression Modeling Linear and Nonlinear Dimensionality Reduction Supervised Classification Black Box Machine Learning Methods Qualitative Learning Methods—Text Mining, Natural Language Processing, and Apriori Association Rules Learning Unsupervised Clustering Model Performance Assessment, Validation, and Improvement Specialized Machine Learning Topics Variable Importance and Feature Selection Big Longitudinal Data Analysis Function Optimization Deep Learning, Neural Networks == Reception == The materials in the Data Science and Predictive Analytics (DSPA) textbook have been peer-reviewed in the Journal of the American Statistical Association, International Statistical Institute’s ISI Review Journal, and the Journal of the American Library Association. Many scholarly publications reference the DSPA textbook. As of January 17, 2021, the electronic version of the book first edition (ISBN 978-3-319-72347-1) is freely available on SpringerLink and has been downloaded over 6 million times. The textbook is globally available in print (hardcover and softcover) and electronic formats (PDF and EPub) in many college and university libraries and has been used for data science, computational statistics, and analytics classes at various institutions.
The Machine Question
The Machine Question: Critical Perspectives on AI, Robots, and Ethics is a 2012 nonfiction book by David J. Gunkel that discusses the evolution of the theory of human ethical responsibilities toward non-human things and to what extent intelligent, autonomous machines can be considered to have legitimate moral responsibilities and what legitimate claims to moral consideration they can hold. The book was awarded as the 2012 Best Single Authored Book by the Communication Ethics Division of the National Communication Association. == Content == The book is spread across three chapters, with the first two chapters focusing on an overall review of the history of philosophy and its discussion of moral agency, moral rights, human rights, and animal rights and the third chapter focusing on what defines "thingness" and why machines have been excluded from moral and ethical consideration due to a misuse of the patient/agent binary. The first chapter, titled Moral Agency, breaks down the history of said agency based on what it included and excluded in various parts of history. Gunkel also raises the conflict between discussing the morality of humans toward objects and the theory of the philosophy of technology that "technology is merely a tool: a means to an end". The main issue, he explains, in defining what constitutes an appropriate moral agent is that there will be things left outside of what is included, as the definition is based on a set of characteristics that will inherently not be all-encompassing. The subject of consciousness is broached and subsequently derided by Gunkel because of it being one of the main arguments against machine rights, while Gunkel points out that no "settled definition" of the term exists and that he considers it no better than a synonym used for "the occultish soul". In addition, the issue of the other minds problem entails that no proper understanding of consciousness can come to pass due to the inability to properly understand the mind of a being that is not oneself. The second chapter, titled Moral Patiency, focuses on the patient end of the topic and discusses the expansion of the fields of animal studies and environmental studies. Gunkel describes moral patients as the ones that are to be the object of moral consideration and deserve such consideration even if they lack their own agency, such as animals, thus allowing moral consideration itself to be broader and more inclusive. The topic of other minds is discussed again when examining the question of whether animals can suffer, a question that Gunkel ultimately abandons because it encounters the same problems that the topic of consciousness does. Especially because the subject of animal rights is often only afforded for the animals deemed to be "cute", but often not including "reptiles, insects, or microbes". Gunkel continues on to examine environmental ethics and information ethics, but finds them to be too anthropocentric, just as all the other examined models have been. The third chapter, titled Thinking Otherwise, proposes a combination of Heideggerian ontology and Levinasian ethics to properly discuss the otherness of technology and machines, but finds that the patient/agent binary is unable to be properly extended to confine the extent of "the machine question". In discussing the land ethic philosophy espoused by Aldo Leopold, Gunkel proposes that it is the entire relationship between agent and patient that should have moral consideration and not a specific definition based on either side, as each part contributes to the relationship as a whole and cannot be removed without breaking that relationship. == Critical reception == Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries writer R. S. Stansbury explained that the book is able to use simple examples to discuss difficult topics and separate ideas and that it would be "useful for philosophy students, and for engineering students interested in exploring the ethical implications of their work". Dominika Dzwonkowska, writing for International Philosophical Quarterly, stated that the "unprecedented value of the book is that Gunkel not only analyzes important aspects of the immediate problem but also that he places his discussion in the context of philosophical discussions on such related issues as rights discourse." Mark Coeckelbergh in Ethics and Information Technology noted that focusing on the question itself of the machine question allows further exploration of machine ethics and the expansion of general ethics and that the book's questions point out that "good, critical philosophical reflection on machines is not only about how we should cope with machines, but also about how we (should) think and what role technology plays (and should play) in this thinking." A review in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews by Colin Allen criticized some of Gunkel's methodology and the indecisiveness of his ultimate answer to the machine question, but also acknowledged that the book "succeeded in connecting the ethics of robots and AI to a much broader ethical discussion than has been represented in the literature on machine ethics to date". Blay Whitby, in a review for AISB Quarterly, lauded The Machine Question for its "clear exposition" and wide range of references to other works, concluding that the book is "essential reading for philosophers interested in AI, robot ethics, or animal ethics". In a twin review of The Machine Question and Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robots by Patrick Lin, Keith Abney, and George A. Bekey, Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology reviewer Jeff Shaw called Gunkel's book a good introduction to the "complex field of robot ethics" and that both books are "highly recommended to both the general reader as well as to experts in the field of robotics, philosophy, and ethics." In a 2017 paper for Ethics and Information Technology, Katharyn Hogan investigated whether the machine question presented by Gunkel in the book is any different from the longstanding animal question. She concludes that the real question that is revealed from this discussion is whether humans deserve any moral preference over artificial life in the first place.