In cryptography, What You See Is What You Sign (WYSIWYS) is a property of digital signature systems that ensures the semantic content of signed messages can not be changed, either by accident or intent. == Mechanism of WYSIWYS == When digitally signing a document, the integrity of the signature relies not just on the soundness of the digital signature algorithms that are used, but also on the security of the computing platform used to sign the document. The WYSIWYS property of digital signature systems aims to tackle this problem by defining a desirable property that the visual representation of a digital document should be consistent across computing systems, particularly at the points of digital signature and digital signature verification. It is relatively easy to change the interpretation of a digital document by implementing changes on the computer system where the document is being processed, and the greater the semantic distance, the easier it gets. From a semantic perspective this creates uncertainty about what exactly has been signed. WYSIWYS is a property of a digital signature system that ensures that the semantic interpretation of a digitally signed message cannot be changed, either by accident or by intent. This property also ensures that a digital document to be signed can not contain hidden semantic content that can be revealed after the signature has been applied. Though a WYSIWYS implementation is only as secure as the computing platform it is running on, various methods have been proposed to make WYSIWYS more robust. The term WYSIWYS was coined by Peter Landrock and Torben Pedersen to describe some of the principles in delivering secure and legally binding digital signatures for Pan-European projects.
Topincs
Topincs is a software for rapid development of web databases and web applications. It is based on LAMP and the semantic technology Topic Maps. A Topincs web database makes information accessible through browsing very much like a Wiki. Editing a page on a subject is done through forms rather than markup editing. A web database can be tailored into a web application to provide specific user groups a contextualized approach to the data. All modeling and development tasks are performed in the web browser. No other development tools are necessary. The server requires Apache, MySQL and PHP. The client works on any standards-compliant web browser on desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile phones. The layout is automatically adjusted to smaller screens. The programmatic access to data is done via a virtual object-oriented programming interface which is set up over the schema in a few minutes. It is interpreted rather than generated. Portions of the database can be pulled into memory to accelerate bulk access. == Features == Browseable data High-quality web forms Little to no programming Development done in the browser, no other tools required Client runs in any standard-compliant web browser Virtual object-oriented programming interface User interface adjusts to screen size Supports desktops, laptops, tablets, and mobile phones Flexible data modeling == Challenges == Requires rethinking the development process and dropping many hard learned habits Requires a familiarity with two ISO standards ISO 13259 and 19756 Forms cannot be easily adjusted in layout and behavior Server installation difficult and prone to error == License == Topincs can be used in a private network for any purpose for free. The use in a public network is restricted to non-commercial applications.
Take Us to Your Chief: and Other Stories
Take Us to Your Chief: and Other Stories is a collection of nine short stories by Canadian author, playwright, and journalist Drew Hayden Taylor published in 2016 by Douglas & McIntyre. Taylor, who is part Caucasian, part Ojibwe, explains in the acknowledgments section of the book that the origin of the project lies in several failed attempts "to compile an anthology of Native sci-fi from Canada’s best First Nations writers." The stories explore contemporary First Nations social issues through employing a number of 1950s-era science fiction tropes and themes in these stories, including time travel, alien contact, and superpowers. Many reviews of the books have noted Taylor's use of humor to examine dark subject matter, such as the heritage of Canadian Indian residential schools, First Nations suicide rates, or the water quality crisis on Canadian reserves. == The Stories == "Andrei nas" "I Am...Am I" "Lost in Space" "Dreams of Doom" "Mr. Gizmo" "Petropaths" "Stars" "Superdisappointed" "Take Us to Your Chief" == Story summaries == === Foreword === In his foreword, Taylor describes the genesis of Take Us to Your Chief: and Other Stories and invites readers into, in his term, a “new terra nullius.” He begins by describing his biracial upbringing and heritage. He points out that First Nations people are rarely associated with technology or science fiction, in part because Indigenous peoples were often at a technological disadvantage against European colonizers. He references the few examples that he can think of from popular culture, such as the Star Trek episode called “The Paradise Syndrome,” in which First Nations people are portrayed as stereotypical Indians in hippie clothing. He also elaborates on his fascination with the world of sci-fi, which first started in comic books. He enjoyed the literary work of H.G. Wells, such as The Time Machine and The Invisible Man. Since sci-fi is a world of endless opportunities, he intends that these short stories help people explore science fiction through Native peoples’ minds, something that needs to be explored more thoroughly. === "A Culturally Inappropriate Armageddon" === “A Culturally Inappropriate Armageddon” is set on a Haudenosaunee reserve, towards the end of the Oka Crisis, with a handful of people that work at its first ever radio station, C-RES, which opens in 1991. Part 1, titled “C-Res Is on the Air,” depicts Emily, Aaron, and Tracey on their first days at the station. Within the group, there is a constant debate between broadcasting popular programming, including science fiction and film reviews, and culturally-relevant programming meant to aid in cultural revitalization efforts. One night, Aaron is late to work but once he shows up he can't stop talking about radio transmissions broadcasting into deep space, an event that has been occurring since the initial discovery of the radio waves by Heinrich Hertz. The story then skips ahead seven years to 1998, when Emily is struggling to find better content for her station until Tracey stumbles upon an old anthropological record named “The Calling Song” that they decide to broadcast to their audience. The story then jumps to the year 2018 where they are all huddled around a television watching a news station reporting that extraterrestrial life is heading towards them. The discussion of what is going to happen comes into the picture and they all decide it would either be like Contact or The Day the Earth Stood Still. A year later in 2019, the aliens have invaded the planet and destroyed everything. As the three former radio station employees suffer from radioactive fallout, they realize that the aliens received the broadcast of “The Calling Song” and took it as a message to come to Earth. They thus realize that the Haudenosaunee people were inadvertently responsible for the destruction of the Earth. Part 2, titled “Old Men and Old Sayings,” tells us of an elderly man that is watching the news and listening to the radio about a spaceship coming to earth. He knows that he and everyone will die, but the people around him are excited. He finds a book on his night stand and flips to a page where he underlined a sentence a long time ago about the European colonization of the Americas. That sentence reads “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (23). He closes the book and Taylor concludes the story by writing, “he hated it when white people were right." === "I Am...Am I" === “I Am...Am I” chronicles the accidental creation and unexpected ending of artificial intelligence. Professor Mark King has a plethora of degrees and works for a research firm called FUTUREVISION. One night as Professor King searches the lab for his car keys—a common occurrence for him—he notices something unusual in the Matrix room. He reads on a computer the phrase “I am.” First believing it to be a prank, King later comes to the realization that his Matrix project has evolved into a responsive Artificial Intelligence. After this realization, Professor King calls his peer Dr. Gayle Chambers to further investigate this miraculous event. After receiving approval from their superiors, Professor King and Dr. Chambers move forward in feeding the AI information, with Chambers serving as the lead communicator. With more information, it becomes increasingly concerned with its own existence and the concept of whether it has a soul. After several days of conversation with the AI, Chambers and King begin to feel uneasy about the AI's responses, which show signs of neuroses. Despite this behavior, Chambers decides to feed the AI information about the culture and history of the human race. Upon receiving this information, the AI becomes obsessed with Indigenous spirituality prior to the colonization of the Americas, and it requests more information on First Nations people. Dr. Chambers is hesitant at first, but gives in and continues to feed the AI the information with the intention to return to it in the morning. This leads to the AI finding out about colonization and genocide of Indigenous peoples. Upon her arrival the next day, Chambers discovers that the code for the AI has been completely wiped from the hard drive and a single message is left on the screen—"I was”—that signifies the AI's suicide. === "Lost in Space" === "Lost in Space" is told from the perspective of Mitchell, an Anishinabe astrosurveyor who is aboard a space shuttle on a two-year tour collecting rocks from an asteroid belt. He is accompanied by an Artificial general intelligence named Mac, short for “machine.” Mac is aboard this tour in order to accompany Mitchell and keep him sane; however, his company is a burden because for Mitchell, “true space exploration consists largely of boredom.” In the midst of Mitchell seeking a way to occupy his downtime, Mac interrupts with news about his grandfather, Papa Peter, dying. Papa Peter was Mitchell's only real tie to his Indigenous identity. After receiving the news Mitchell begins to reminisce on all of the things Papa Peter had taught him throughout his life. He constantly posed questions concerning the world above (Father Sky) and how it is more important than the land they live on (Mother Earth), which eventually led Mitchell to the selection of his career. During his state of mourning, Mitchell begins to go through all the videos his grandfather had sent him throughout his space tours. Papa Peter had sent Mitchell videos from Otter Lake, a First Nations reserve; these videos are about controversial topics regarding being both native and an astronaut. In the midst of Mitchell's grieving, Mac tries to relieve the situation by finding an online video of Mitchell's grandfather participating in a drum ceremony at Ottawa’s National Aboriginal Day festival. He reconnects to his roots and his grandfather’s spirit as he listens to the Indigenous music by feeling the drum beat and humming along. Mac’s small act of kindness leads Mitchell to gain a new-found appreciation for his presence. Mitchell feels responsible to moving forward in his life in memory of Papa Peter. === "Dreams of Doom" === "Dreams of Doom" is narrated by an Ojibway reporter named Pamela Wanishin who works for an aboriginal newspaper called the West Wind. One day she receives a mysterious package with a broken dreamcatcher and a flash drive containing highly classified files. As she reads the files, she keeps seeing the term “Project Nightlight,” and out of curiosity, she Googles it. Once she Googles this, she is contacted by a nameless agent from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and told that she must be relocated because the knowledge she now possesses must never be released to the public. She quickly flees the area to a cabin at Otter Lake, owned by a family member, to lie low for a few days. Eventually, the government organization tracks her down using drones, which forces her to fight back and flee once again. Pamela then runs to her friend and coworker Sally's hous
Argumentation theory
Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialogue, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts by the judge, the parties and the prosecutor, in presenting and testing the validity of evidences. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. Argumentation is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, description, and narration. == Key components of argumentation == Some key components of argumentation are: Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived. Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for their position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for their argument. For example, consider the following exchange, illustrating the No true Scotsman fallacy: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my friend Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Well perhaps, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." In this dialogue, the proposer first offers a premise, the premise is challenged by the interlocutor, and so the proposer offers a modification of the premise, which is designed only to evade the challenge provided. == Internal structure of arguments == Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following: a set of assumptions or premises, a method of reasoning or deduction, and a conclusion or point. An argument has one or more premises and one conclusion. Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore, it is common to insist that the set of assumptions be consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A non-classical approach to argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken into account. == Types of dialogue == In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other, but there are various types of dialogue: Persuasion dialogue aims to resolve conflicting points of view of different positions. Negotiation aims to resolve conflicts of interests by cooperation and dealmaking. Inquiry aims to resolve general ignorance by the growth of knowledge. Deliberation aims to resolve a need to take action by reaching a decision. Information seeking aims to reduce one party's ignorance by requesting information from another party that is in a position to know something. Eristic aims to resolve a situation of antagonism through verbal fighting. == Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge == Argumentation theory had its origins in foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures. But argument scholars gradually rejected Aristotle's systematic philosophy and the idealism in Plato and Kant. They questioned and ultimately discarded the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems. The field thus broadened. One of the original contributors to this trend was the philosopher Chaïm Perelman, who together with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced the French term la nouvelle rhetorique in 1958 to describe an approach to argument which is not reduced to application of formal rules of inference. Perelman's view of argumentation is much closer to a juridical one, in which rules for presenting evidence and rebuttals play an important role. Karl R. Wallace's seminal essay, "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons" in the Quarterly Journal of Speech (1963) 44, led many scholars to study "marketplace argumentation" – the ordinary arguments of ordinary people. The seminal essay on marketplace argumentation is Ray Lynn Anderson's and C. David Mortensen's "Logic and Marketplace Argumentation" Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 143–150. This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge. Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn". In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge. == Kinds of argumentation == === Conversational argumentation === The study of naturally occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversation analysis (CA). Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech. Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement. === Mathematical argumentation === The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Begriffsschrift, 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in th
Computing Machinery and Intelligence
"Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo
Conversica
Conversica is a US-based cloud software technology company, headquartered in San Mateo, California, that provides two-way AI-driven conversational software and a suite of Intelligent Virtual Assistants for businesses to engage customers via email, chat, and SMS. == History == 2007: The company was founded by Ben Brigham in Bellingham, Washington, originally as AutoFerret.com. The company's initial product was a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) targeted at automotive dealerships. This soon expanded to lead generation, and then lead validation and qualification. The AI Conversica uses currently was made to follow up on and filter out low-quality leads. The focus of the company shifted toward this automated lead engagement technology. 2010: The company started commercially selling AVA, the first Automated Virtual Assistant for sales, and the company name was changed to AVA.ai. Early customers for AVA were automotive dealerships. As the company moved away from generating leads themselves, and providing the CRM themselves, it became necessary to integrate with existing CRM and Marketing Automation platforms, such as DealerSocket, VinSolutions and Salesforce. 2013: The company raised $16m Series A funding, led by Kennet Partners, and named Mark Bradley as CEO. It also moved its headquarters from Bellingham, Washington to Foster City, California. 2014: The company changed its name from AVA.ai to Conversica. 2015: Alex Terry joined Conversica as its CEO. The business expanded to include customers in additional verticals, including technology, education, and financial services. 2016: The company raised $34m Series B funding, led by Providence Strategic Growth. 2017: Conversica expanded its intelligent automation platform and IVAs to support additional communication channels (e-mail and SMS text messaging) and communication languages. Conversica also opened a new technology center in Seattle, Washington to expand its AI and machine learning capabilities. 2018: The company raised $31m Series C funding, led by Providence Strategic Growth. Conversica also acquired Intelligens.ai, providing a regional presence in Latin America with an office in Las Condes, Santiago, Chile. The company launched an AI-powered Admissions Assistant for Higher Education industry. 2019: Conversica was selected by Fast Company magazine as one of the Top 10 Most Innovative AI Companies in the World, and was named Marketo's Technology Partner of the Year. The company officially expanded into the EMEA region with the opening of a London office. As of August 2019, Conversica has over 50 different integrations with third parties. In October Conversica won three awards at the fourth annual Global Annual Achievement Awards for Artificial Intelligence. Also that month, Alex Terry stepped down from his role as CEO and was replaced by Jim Kaskade. 2020: As part of Conversica's response to COVID-19, they optimized the business to become profitable in both 2Q20 and 3Q20, before reinvesting in 4Q20. The company transitioned both international operations in EMEA and LATAM to an indirect model with partners (LeadFabric and Nectia Cloud Solutions respectively), and moved a portion of its US-based employees to near-shore centers in Mexico and Brazil, effectively downsizing the company from 250 to 200. Conversica's reseller partner, Nectia, is a major Latin American affiliate and Chile's number one Salesforce partner, and, as part of the partnership, Nectia devoted capital to a brand new company segment, Predict-IA, dedicated to web-based artificial intelligent solutions. Predict-IA was able to immediately service all LATAM opportunities and clients with Conversica's AI Assistants with end-to-end services (marketing, sales, professional services, customer success, and technical support). Conversica's reseller partner, Leadfabric, has offices in Belgium, Amsterdam, Paris, UK, Taiwan, and Romania. == Technology == Conversica's Revenue Digital Assistants™ are AI assistants who engage with leads, prospects, customers, employees, and other persons of interest (Contacts) in a two-way human-like manner, via email, SMS text, and website chat, in English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese. The RDAs are built on an Intelligent Automation platform that leverages natural language understanding, natural language processing, natural language generation, deep learning and machine learning. The Assistants are generally deployed alongside sales and marketing, customer success, account management, and higher education admissions teams, as part of an augmented workforce. The Intelligent Automation platform integrates with over 50 external systems, including CRM, Marketing Automation, and other systems of record. A partial list of integration partners includes: Salesforce, Marketo, Oracle, HubSpot, DealerSocket, Reynolds & Reynolds, CDK Global, VinSolutions and many more.
European Conference on Artificial Intelligence
The European Conference on Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) is the leading conference in the field of Artificial Intelligence in Europe, and is commonly listed together with IJCAI and AAAI as one of the three major general AI conferences worldwide. The conference series has been held without interruption since 1974, originally under the name AISB. The conference was originally held biennially, but has been organized annually since ECAI 2022. The conferences are held under the auspices of the European Coordinating Committee for Artificial Intelligence (ECCAI) and organized by one of the member societies. The journal AI Communications, sponsored by the same society, regularly publishes special issues in which conference attendees report on the conference. Publication of a paper in ECAI is considered by some journals to be archival: the paper should be considered equivalent to a journal publication and that the contents of ECAI papers cannot be reformulated as separate journal submissions unless a significant amount of new material is added. == List of ECAI conferences == ECAI-1992 took place in Vienna, Austria. ECAI-1996 took place in Budapest, Hungary. ECAI-1998 tool place in Brighton, United Kingdom. ECAI-2000 took place in Berlin, Germany. ECAI-2004 took place in Valencia, Spain. ECAI-2006 took place in Riva del Garda, Italy. ECAI-2008 took place in Patras, Greece. ECAI-2010 took place in Lisbon, Portugal. ECAI-2012 took place in Montpellier, France. ECAI-2014 took place in Prague, Czech Republic. ECAI-2016 took place in The Hague, Netherlands. ECAI-2018 took place in Stockholm, Sweden. ECAI-2020 took place in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ECAI-2022 took place in Vienna, Austria. ECAI-2023 took place in Kraków, Poland. ECAI-2024 took place in Santiago de Compostela, Spain. ECAI-2025 took place in Bologna, Italy.