Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a means of visualizing the level of similarity of individual cases of a data set. MDS is used to translate distances between each pair of n {\textstyle n} objects in a set into a configuration of n {\textstyle n} points mapped into an abstract Cartesian space. More technically, MDS refers to a set of related ordination techniques used in information visualization, in particular to display the information contained in a distance matrix. It is a form of non-linear dimensionality reduction. Given a distance matrix with the distances between each pair of objects in a set, and a chosen number of dimensions, N, an MDS algorithm places each object into N-dimensional space (a lower-dimensional representation) such that the between-object distances are preserved as well as possible. For N = 1, 2, and 3, the resulting points can be visualized on a scatter plot. Core theoretical contributions to MDS were made by James O. Ramsay of McGill University, who is also regarded as the founder of functional data analysis. == Types == MDS algorithms fall into a taxonomy, depending on the meaning of the input matrix: === Classical multidimensional scaling === It is also known as Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA), Torgerson Scaling or Torgerson–Gower scaling. It takes an input matrix giving dissimilarities between pairs of items and outputs a coordinate matrix whose configuration minimizes a loss function called strain, which is given by Strain D ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = ( ∑ i , j ( b i j − x i T x j ) 2 ∑ i , j b i j 2 ) 1 / 2 , {\displaystyle {\text{Strain}}_{D}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})={\Biggl (}{\frac {\sum _{i,j}{\bigl (}b_{ij}-x_{i}^{T}x_{j}{\bigr )}^{2}}{\sum _{i,j}b_{ij}^{2}}}{\Biggr )}^{1/2},} where x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} denote vectors in N-dimensional space, x i T x j {\displaystyle x_{i}^{T}x_{j}} denotes the scalar product between x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and x j {\displaystyle x_{j}} , and b i j {\displaystyle b_{ij}} are the elements of the matrix B {\displaystyle B} defined on step 2 of the following algorithm, which are computed from the distances. Steps of a Classical MDS algorithm: Classical MDS uses the fact that the coordinate matrix X {\displaystyle X} can be derived by eigenvalue decomposition from B = X X ′ {\textstyle B=XX'} . And the matrix B {\textstyle B} can be computed from proximity matrix D {\textstyle D} by using double centering. Set up the squared proximity matrix D ( 2 ) = [ d i j 2 ] {\textstyle D^{(2)}=[d_{ij}^{2}]} Apply double centering: B = − 1 2 C D ( 2 ) C {\textstyle B=-{\frac {1}{2}}CD^{(2)}C} using the centering matrix C = I − 1 n J n {\textstyle C=I-{\frac {1}{n}}J_{n}} , where n {\textstyle n} is the number of objects, I {\textstyle I} is the n × n {\textstyle n\times n} identity matrix, and J n {\textstyle J_{n}} is an n × n {\textstyle n\times n} matrix of all ones. Determine the m {\textstyle m} largest eigenvalues λ 1 , λ 2 , . . . , λ m {\textstyle \lambda _{1},\lambda _{2},...,\lambda _{m}} and corresponding eigenvectors e 1 , e 2 , . . . , e m {\textstyle e_{1},e_{2},...,e_{m}} of B {\textstyle B} (where m {\textstyle m} is the number of dimensions desired for the output). Now, X = E m Λ m 1 / 2 {\textstyle X=E_{m}\Lambda _{m}^{1/2}} , where E m {\textstyle E_{m}} is the matrix of m {\textstyle m} eigenvectors and Λ m {\textstyle \Lambda _{m}} is the diagonal matrix of m {\textstyle m} eigenvalues of B {\textstyle B} . Classical MDS assumes metric distances. So this is not applicable for direct dissimilarity ratings. === Metric multidimensional scaling (mMDS) === It is a superset of classical MDS that generalizes the optimization procedure to a variety of loss functions and input matrices of known distances with weights and so on. A useful loss function in this context is called stress, which is often minimized using a procedure called stress majorization. Metric MDS minimizes the cost function called “stress” which is a residual sum of squares: Stress D ( x 1 , x 2 , . . . , x n ) = ∑ i ≠ j = 1 , . . . , n ( d i j − ‖ x i − x j ‖ ) 2 . {\displaystyle {\text{Stress}}_{D}(x_{1},x_{2},...,x_{n})={\sqrt {\sum _{i\neq j=1,...,n}{\bigl (}d_{ij}-\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|{\bigr )}^{2}}}.} Metric scaling uses a power transformation with a user-controlled exponent p {\textstyle p} : d i j p {\textstyle d_{ij}^{p}} and − d i j 2 p {\textstyle -d_{ij}^{2p}} for distance. In classical scaling p = 1. {\textstyle p=1.} Non-metric scaling is defined by the use of isotonic regression to nonparametrically estimate a transformation of the dissimilarities. === Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) === In contrast to metric MDS, non-metric MDS finds both a non-parametric monotonic relationship between the dissimilarities in the item-item matrix and the Euclidean distances between items, and the location of each item in the low-dimensional space. Let d i j {\displaystyle d_{ij}} be the dissimilarity between points i , j {\displaystyle i,j} . Let d ^ i j = ‖ x i − x j ‖ {\displaystyle {\hat {d}}_{ij}=\|x_{i}-x_{j}\|} be the Euclidean distance between embedded points x i , x j {\displaystyle x_{i},x_{j}} . Now, for each choice of the embedded points x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} and is a monotonically increasing function f {\displaystyle f} , define the "stress" function: S ( x 1 , . . . , x n ; f ) = ∑ i < j ( f ( d i j ) − d ^ i j ) 2 ∑ i < j d ^ i j 2 . {\displaystyle S(x_{1},...,x_{n};f)={\sqrt {\frac {\sum _{i Token Maxxing or Token Maxing is a metric used in an attempt to track productivity in the workplace especially for those using Artificial Intelligence (AI) based services. AI services charge for each token which represent units of effort expended by an AI service to solve a problem. Some believe that token consumption equates to productivity and thus can be used as a metric to monitor an employee's work. Supporters believe that higher token usage indicates higher productivity and higher utilization of powerful AI services. This also suggests that those not consuming enough tokens may be less productive and underutilizing powerful AI services. This belief might lead to an environment that incentivizes higher token usage to predict increased productivity. Critics of token maxxing as a metric claim that prudent workers will maximize any metric that management wants increased to gain a workplace advantage. For example: Engineers in the tech industries pressed to consume as many tokens as possible might run several AI agents in tandem, enter longer input prompts, or automate their tasks to maximize their token consumption. To management, this higher token usage may indicate potential productivity, but in reality may cause additional token costs, worker burnout, or actually create more bloated code of lower quality. Another claim is AI service companies potentially benefit from such an emphasis on token consumption and actively encourage the trend. Some developers have publicly advocated the practice. Developer Sigrid Jin, who said he used 50 billion tokens in a single year, has argued that maximizing token consumption is the best way to understand the value of AI, advising others to spend as much on AI usage as they pay in rent to obtain a return on investment. == See Also == Goodhart's law Perverse incentive Jevons Paradox In concurrency control of databases, transaction processing (transaction management), and other transactional distributed applications, global serializability (or modular serializability) is a property of a global schedule of transactions. A global schedule is the unified schedule of all the individual database (and other transactional object) schedules in a multidatabase environment (e.g., federated database). Complying with global serializability means that the global schedule is serializable, has the serializability property, while each component database (module) has a serializable schedule as well. In other words, a collection of serializable components provides overall system serializability, which is usually incorrect. A need in correctness across databases in multidatabase systems makes global serializability a major goal for global concurrency control (or modular concurrency control). With the proliferation of the Internet, Cloud computing, Grid computing, and small, portable, powerful computing devices (e.g., smartphones), as well as increase in systems management sophistication, the need for atomic distributed transactions and thus effective global serializability techniques, to ensure correctness in and among distributed transactional applications, seems to increase. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple (and possibly distributed) databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system, where different databases may use different types of concurrency control, is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability globally would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. Achieving global serializability effectively over different types of concurrency control has been open for several years. == The global serializability problem == === Problem statement === The difficulties described above translate into the following problem: Find an efficient (high-performance and fault tolerant) method to enforce Global serializability (global conflict serializability) in a heterogeneous distributed environment of multiple autonomous database systems. The database systems may employ different concurrency control methods. No limitation should be imposed on the operations of either local transactions (confined to a single database system) or global transactions (span two or more database systems). === Quotations === Lack of an appropriate solution for the global serializability problem has driven researchers to look for alternatives to serializability as a correctness criterion in a multidatabase environment (e.g., see Relaxing global serializability below), and the problem has been characterized as difficult and open. The following two quotations demonstrate the mindset about it by the end of the year 1991, with similar quotations in numerous other articles: "Without knowledge about local as well as global transactions, it is highly unlikely that efficient global concurrency control can be provided... Additional complications occur when different component DBMSs [Database Management Systems] and the FDBMSs [Federated Database Management Systems] support different concurrency mechanisms... It is unlikely that a theoretically elegant solution that provides conflict serializability without sacrificing performance (i.e., concurrency and/or response time) and availability exists." === Proposed solutions === Several solutions, some partial, have been proposed for the global serializability problem. Among them: Global conflict graph (serializability graph, precedence graph) checking Distributed Two-phase locking (Distributed 2PL) Distributed Timestamp ordering Tickets (local logical timestamps which define local total orders, and are propagated to determine global partial order of transactions) == Relaxing global serializability == Some techniques have been developed for relaxed global serializability (i.e., they do not guarantee global serializability; see also Relaxing serializability). Among them (with several publications each): Quasi serializability Two-level serializability Another common reason nowadays for Global serializability relaxation is the requirement of availability of internet products and services. This requirement is typically answered by large scale data replication. The straightforward solution for synchronizing replicas' updates of a same database object is including all these updates in a single atomic distributed transaction. However, with many replicas such a transaction is very large, and may span several computers and networks that some of them are likely to be unavailable. Thus such a transaction is likely to end with abort and miss its purpose. Consequently, Optimistic replication (Lazy replication) is often utilized (e.g., in many products and services by Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and alike), while global serializability is relaxed and compromised for eventual consistency. In this case relaxation is done only for applications that are not expected to be harmed by it. Classes of schedules defined by relaxed global serializability properties either contain the global serializability class, or are incomparable with it. What differentiates techniques for relaxed global conflict serializability (RGCSR) properties from those of relaxed conflict serializability (RCSR) properties that are not RGCSR is typically the different way global cycles (span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph are handled. No distinction between global and local cycles exists for RCSR properties that are not RGCSR. RCSR contains RGCSR. Typically RGCSR techniques eliminate local cycles, i.e., provide local serializability (which can be achieved effectively by regular, known concurrency control methods); however, obviously they do not eliminate all global cycles (which would achieve global serializability). Security information management (SIM) is an information security industry term for the collection of data such as log files into a central repository for trend analysis. == Overview == SIM products generally are software agents running on the computer systems that are monitored. The recorded log information is then sent to a centralized server that acts as a "security console". The console typically displays reports, charts, and graphs of that information, often in real time. Some software agents can incorporate local filters to reduce and manipulate the data that they send to the server, although typically from a forensic point of view you would collect all audit and accounting logs to ensure you can recreate a security incident. The security console is monitored by an administrator who reviews the consolidated information and takes action in response to any alerts issued. The data that is sent to the server to be correlated and analyzed are normalized by the software agents into a common form, usually XML. Those data are then aggregated in order to reduce their overall size. == Terminology == The terminology can easily be mistaken as a reference to the whole aspect of protecting one's infrastructure from any computer security breach. Due to historic reasons of terminology evolution; SIM refers to just the part of information security which consists of discovery of 'bad behavior' or policy violations by using data collection techniques. The term commonly used to represent an entire security infrastructure that protects an environment is commonly called information security management (InfoSec). Security information management is also referred to as log management and is different from SEM (security event management), but makes up a portion of a SIEM (security information and event management) solution. == Regulatory compliance == Security information management systems support compliance with regulatory frameworks that require centralized collection and analysis of security data. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Security Rule requires covered entities to implement audit controls that record and examine activity in information systems containing electronic protected health information (45 CFR 164.312(b))."45 CFR § 164.312 - Technical safeguards". Legal Information Institute. Retrieved April 1, 2026. SIM platforms aggregate these audit records to support the required regular review of information system activity records (45 CFR 164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)). The December 2024 HIPAA Security Rule NPRM proposed requiring regulated entities to deploy automated systems capable of monitoring and recording access to ePHI, including the ability to detect unauthorized access attempts in near real-time."HIPAA Security Rule To Strengthen the Cybersecurity of Electronic Protected Health Information". Federal Register. January 6, 2025. Retrieved April 1, 2026. The Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) similarly requires centralized log management and daily review of security events (Requirements 10.4 and 10.6)."PCI DSS v4.0" (PDF). PCI Security Standards Council. March 2022. Retrieved April 1, 2026. NIST Special Publication 800-53 addresses security information management through the AU (Audit and Accountability) control family, which specifies requirements for audit event generation, content, storage, and analysis."NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5: Security and Privacy Controls". National Institute of Standards and Technology. September 2020. Retrieved April 1, 2026. Triller is an American video-sharing social networking service that was first released for iOS and Android in 2015. The service allowed users to create and share short-form videos, including videos set to, or automatically synchronized to, music using artificial intelligence technology. It initially operated as a video editing app before adding social networking features. Triller gained prominence in 2020 as a competitor to the similar Chinese-owned app TikTok, mainly in the United States and India (after the service was banned in the latter country). The app's success would allow its parent company to expand into sports broadcasting and promotion; including the distribution of pay-per-view boxing events under the Triller Fight Club banner (such as Mike Tyson vs. Roy Jones Jr. and Jake Paul vs. Ben Askren) that incorporated live music performances and appearances by various celebrities and entertainment personalities. == History == === Launch and early years === Triller was launched in 2015 by co-founders David Leiberman and Sammy Rubin. The app was originally positioned as a video editor, using artificial intelligence to automatically edit distinct clips into music videos. They later launched Triller Famous, a page within the app that featured curated selections of user videos. In 2016, the app was purchased by Carnegie Technologies and converted into a social networking service by allowing users to follow each other and share their videos publicly. In 2019, Ryan Kavanaugh's Proxima Media made a majority investment. It is headquartered in Los Angeles, California, and is currently led by CEO Mahi de Silva. === Media exposure and controversies === On June 29, 2020, Government of India banned TikTok, among other apps stating that they were "prejudicial to [the] sovereignty and integrity" of India. Triller, which had planned to enter into the Indian market by the end of 2020, saw a spike from less than 1 million users to over 30 million users in the country overnight. In July 2020, Triller sued ByteDance, the Chinese parent company of TikTok, for infringing patents relating to video editing. In response, TikTok and ByteDance filed a lawsuit against Triller, alleging the litigation initiated by Triller has "cast a cloud" over TikTok's reputation and business dealings. That Summer, U.S. president Donald Trump signed an executive order which threatened to ban TikTok from operating within the United States, citing threats to national security, unless it was sold by ByteDance. The Trump administration stated that TikTok had until November 12, 2020, to assure the administration that the app did not pose any national security threats to the U.S. Following this order and news of possible purchases of TikTok's American operations by companies such as Oracle, Triller jumped from number 198 to number one in the App Store in the U.S., while TikTok dropped down to number three. The discussions surrounding TikTok's potential ban in the United States caused popular TikTok stars, including Charli D’Amelio and her family, to join Triller. Trump joined Triller himself and posted his first video on August 15, 2020. The video received over a million views within hours. On August 12, 2020, Triller partnered with B2B music company 7digital, which will provide Triller with access to its catalogue of 80 million tracks and automatically report usage data to Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group and Merlin Network. The number of Triller's app installations came under scrutiny when third-party analytics firm Apptopia estimated only 52 million lifetime installations of the app by August 2020, while Triller claimed 250 million. Triller threatened to sue Apptopia for publishing the report. By October 2020, Triller claimed to serve 100 million active monthly users, but this number was quickly disputed by six former employees interviewed by Business Insider. Within a few weeks of Triller's claim, employees shared screenshots of the company's internal analytics that showed less than 2.5 million active monthly users. On October 2, 2020, Triller signed licensing deals with the rights societies PRS for Music, GEMA, STIM and IMRO, and the publishers Concord, Downtown and Peermusic. On February 5, 2021, Universal Music Group (UMG) pulled its library from Triller, citing unpaid music royalties. They alleged that Triller "shamefully withheld payments owed to our artists" and refused to negotiate future music licensing. Triller responded with the assertion that "relevant artists" were already partnered with Triller, so a deal with UMG was unnecessary. The two companies reached an expanded licensing agreement in May 2021. On March 24, 2021, Triller signed a licensing agreement with the National Music Publishers' Association. == Features == The Triller app allows users to create music videos, skits, and lip-sync videos containing background music. The app's spotlight feature is its special auto-editing tool, which uses artificial intelligence to automatically stitch separate video clips together without the user having to do it themselves. The separate video clips are created to the same background music, but users are able to shoot multiple takes with different filters or edits each time. Once the auto-editing tool stitches the individual clips together, users can rearrange and replace clips as desired. Users can also customize videos by applying filters and text. When creating a video, users can choose to make a "music video" or a "social video". A "music video" allows users to add music and trim the audio to personal preference. Unlike the music video option, a "social video" does not require the user to add music in the background. The app's auto-editing tool is only used when making music videos, as it uses the background track to help arrange and synchronize the clips. Users can also link their accounts with Apple Music or Spotify to integrate their playlists. Incomplete videos that are yet to be shared appear in a user's "Projects" folder. Once finalized, a video can be shared with other users of the app or through social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Twitter (X), WhatsApp, and YouTube. Any video on Triller can also be downloaded or shared through links, text messages, or direct messaging to other users within the app. The app is divided into three video feeds, consisting of videos from creators that the user follows, the "Social" feed (which showcases trending videos and those by verified users), and the "Music" feed (which exclusively features music videos). Triller accounts can be made either public or private. When the account is public, any user can view the videos on that account. When the account is private, only approved users can view the videos on that account. Users with private accounts can change the privacy settings of individual videos on their accounts from private to public, making the selected videos viewable to anyone on the app. In accordance with online child privacy laws in the United States, children under the age of 13 must receive parental consent in order to create an account on Triller. == User characteristics and behavior == In August 2020, Triller reported that it had been downloaded over 250 million times worldwide with average rating of 4.00. Mobile analytics firm Apptopia disputed the numbers and claimed they were inflated, suggesting that the app had only been downloaded 52 million times since it first launched in 2015. Apptopia pulled the report after Triller threatened to sue the company. The app has been downloaded 23.8 million times in the U.S., with users spending an average of more than 20 minutes per day. A large number of downloads come from India, where TikTok has been banned, as well as from various European and African countries. In October 2020, Triller CEO Mike Lu stated that the app has 100 million monthly active users (MAU). In February 2021, Billboard reported that Triller had "reported higher numbers of monthly active users to the public than it reports to [music] rights holders." CEO Lu argued that "there is no legal definition" of monthly and daily active users, and that "if someone is trying to compare TikTok's MAU/DAU to ours—which means they are saying we have the same definition of MAU/DAU—there is an inherent misunderstanding about Triller's business and business model. It’s like trying to compare a fish and a bicycle." In a public statement, Lu denied that the company had inflated its user metrics. Triller has attracted celebrity users like Chance the Rapper, King Von, LIl Tecca, Lil Mosey, Justin Bieber, Marshmello, The Weeknd, Alicia Keys, Cardi B, Eminem, Post Malone and Kevin Hart. The app is also used by TikTok stars such as Charli D’Amelio, Josh Richards, Noah Beck, Griffin Johnson, and Dixie D’Amelio. Triller has offered large sums of money, company equity, and advisory roles to encourage prominent TikTok users to move to Triller, such as The Sway Boys. Sway House member J Generative art is post-conceptual art that has been created (in whole or in part) with the use of an autonomous system. An autonomous system in this context is generally one that is non-human and can independently determine features of an artwork that would otherwise require decisions made directly by the artist. In some cases the human creator may claim that the generative system represents their own artistic idea, and in others that the system takes on the role of the creator. "Generative art" often refers to algorithmic art (algorithmically determined computer generated artwork) and synthetic media (general term for any algorithmically generated media), but artists can also make generative art using systems of chemistry, biology, mechanics and robotics, smart materials, manual randomization, mathematics, data mapping, symmetry, and tiling. Generative algorithms, algorithms programmed to produce artistic works through predefined rules, stochastic methods, or procedural logic, often yielding dynamic, unique, and contextually adaptable outputs—are central to many of these practices. == History == The use of the word "generative" in the discussion of art has developed over time. The use of "Artificial DNA" defines a generative approach to art focused on the construction of a system able to generate unpredictable events, all with a recognizable common character. The use of autonomous systems, required by some contemporary definitions, focuses a generative approach where the controls are strongly reduced. This approach is also named "emergent". Margaret Boden and Ernest Edmonds have noted the use of the term "generative art" in the broad context of automated computer graphics in the 1960s, beginning with artwork exhibited by Georg Nees and Frieder Nake in 1965: A. Michael Noll did his initial computer art, combining randomness with order, in 1962, and exhibited it along with works by Bell Julesz in 1965. The terms "generative art" and "computer art" have been used in tandem, and more or less interchangeably, since the very earliest days. The first such exhibition showed the work of Nees in February 1965, which some claim was titled "Generative Computergrafik". While Nees does not himself remember, this was the title of his doctoral thesis published a few years later. The correct title of the first exhibition and catalog was "computer-grafik". "Generative art" and related terms was in common use by several other early computer artists around this time, including Manfred Mohr and Ken Knowlton. Vera Molnár (born 1924) is a French media artist of Hungarian origin. Molnar is widely considered to be a pioneer of generative art, and is also one of the first women to use computers in her art practice. The term "Generative Art" with the meaning of dynamic artwork-systems able to generate multiple artwork-events was clearly used the first time for the "Generative Art" conference in Milan in 1998. The term has also been used to describe geometric abstract art where simple elements are repeated, transformed, or varied to generate more complex forms. Thus defined, generative art was practiced by the Argentinian artists Eduardo Mac Entyre and Miguel Ángel Vidal in the late 1960s. In 1972 the Romanian-born Paul Neagu created the Generative Art Group in Britain. It was populated exclusively by Neagu using aliases such as "Hunsy Belmood" and "Edward Larsocchi". In 1972 Neagu gave a lecture titled 'Generative Art Forms' at the Queen's University, Belfast Festival. In 1970 the School of the Art Institute of Chicago created a department called Generative Systems. As described by Sonia Landy Sheridan the focus was on art practices using the then new technologies for the capture, inter-machine transfer, printing and transmission of images, as well as the exploration of the aspect of time in the transformation of image information. Also noteworthy is John Dunn, first a student and then a collaborator of Sheridan. In 1988 Clauser identified the aspect of systemic autonomy as a critical element in generative art: It should be evident from the above description of the evolution of generative art that process (or structuring) and change (or transformation) are among its most definitive features, and that these features and the very term 'generative' imply dynamic development and motion. (the result) is not a creation by the artist but rather the product of the generative process - a self-precipitating structure. In 1989 Celestino Soddu defined the Generative Design approach to Architecture and Town Design in his book Citta' Aleatorie. In 1989 Franke referred to "generative mathematics" as "the study of mathematical operations suitable for generating artistic images." From the mid-1990s Brian Eno popularized the terms generative music and generative systems, making a connection with earlier experimental music by Terry Riley, Steve Reich and Philip Glass. From the end of the 20th century, communities of generative artists, designers, musicians and theoreticians began to meet, forming cross-disciplinary perspectives. The first meeting about generative Art was in 1998, at the inaugural International Generative Art conference at Politecnico di Milano University, Italy. In Australia, the Iterate conference on generative systems in the electronic arts followed in 1999. On-line discussion has centered around the eu-gene mailing list, which began late 1999, and has hosted much of the debate which has defined the field. These activities have more recently been joined by the Generator.x conference in Berlin starting in 2005. In 2012 the new journal GASATHJ, Generative Art Science and Technology Hard Journal was founded by Celestino Soddu and Enrica Colabella jointing several generative artists and scientists in the editorial board. Some have argued that as a result of this engagement across disciplinary boundaries, the community has converged on a shared meaning of the term. As Boden and Edmonds put it in 2011: Today, the term "Generative Art" is still current within the relevant artistic community. Since 1998 a series of conferences have been held in Milan with that title (Generativeart.com), and Brian Eno has been influential in promoting and using generative art methods (Eno, 1996). Both in music and in visual art, the use of the term has now converged on work that has been produced by the activation of a set of rules and where the artist lets a computer system take over at least some of the decision-making (although, of course, the artist determines the rules). In the call of the Generative Art conferences in Milan (annually starting from 1998), the definition of Generative Art by Celestino Soddu: Generative Art is the idea realized as genetic code of artificial events, as construction of dynamic complex systems able to generate endless variations. Each Generative Project is a concept-software that works producing unique and non-repeatable events, like music or 3D Objects, as possible and manifold expressions of the generating idea strongly recognizable as a vision belonging to an artist / designer / musician / architect /mathematician. Discussion on the eu-gene mailing list was framed by the following definition by Adrian Ward from 1999: Generative art is a term given to work which stems from concentrating on the processes involved in producing an artwork, usually (although not strictly) automated by the use of a machine or computer, or by using mathematic or pragmatic instructions to define the rules by which such artworks are executed. A similar definition is provided by Philip Galanter: Generative art refers to any art practice where the artist creates a process, such as a set of natural language rules, a computer program, a machine, or other procedural invention, which is then set into motion with some degree of autonomy contributing to or resulting in a completed work of art. Around the 2020s, generative AI models learned to imitate the distinct style of particular authors. For example, a generative image model such as Stable Diffusion is able to model the stylistic characteristics of an artist like Pablo Picasso (including his particular brush strokes, use of colour, perspective, and so on), and a user can engineer a prompt such as "an astronaut riding a horse, by Picasso" to cause the model to generate a novel image applying the artist's style to an arbitrary subject. Generative image models have received significant backlash from artists who object to their style being imitated without their permission, arguing that this harms their ability to profit from their own work. The emergence of text-to-image generative AI systems has expanded debates over authorship, copyright, and artistic labor. The main issues in these debates include the eligibility of AI-generated outputs for copyright protection and the legal and ethical questions of using existing copyrighted works as training data for generative AI systems. == Types == === Music === Johann Kirnberger's Mu No Thanks is a Palestinian boycott-awareness mobile application developed by Palestinian software engineer Ahmed Bashbash, created to assist consumers in identifying and boycotting products associated with companies linked to Israel. Launched in 13 November 2023, the app gained significant attention amid the Gaza–Israel conflict. == History == No Thanks is a mobile application developed by Ahmed Bashbash, a Palestinian software engineer from Gaza residing in Hungary. The app was conceived in October 2023 following the death of Bashbash's brother in an Israeli airstrike on October 31, 2023. His sister had previously died in 2020 due to delayed medical treatment. The app was officially launched on November 13, 2023, and quickly gained traction, got over 100,000 downloads within its first month of release. On November 30, 2023, Google removed the app from its Play Store due to a violation of its content policies. The app's home page included a description: "Welcome to No Thanks, here you can see if the product in your hand supports killing children in Palestine or not," which was deemed to contravene Google's guidelines on hate speech and sensitive content. On December 3, 2023, following changes to the app's description, Google reinstated the app.Token maxxing
Global serializability
Security information management
Triller (app)
Generative art
No Thanks (app)