There are a number of competitions and prizes to promote research in artificial intelligence. == General machine intelligence == The David E. Rumelhart Prize is an annual award for making a "significant contemporary contribution to the theoretical foundations of human cognition". The prize is $100,000. The Human-Competitive Award is an annual challenge started in 2004 to reward results "competitive with the work of creative and inventive humans". The prize is $10,000. Entries are required to use evolutionary computing. The Intel AI Global Impact Festival is an international annual competition held by Intel Corporation for school, and college students with prizes upwards of $15,000. It is about artificial intelligence technology. There are two age brackets in this competition, 13-18 Age Group, and 18 and Above Age Group. The IJCAI Award for Research Excellence is a biannual award given at the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) to researchers in artificial intelligence as a recognition of excellence of their career. The 2011 Federal Virtual World Challenge, advertised by The White House and sponsored by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory's Simulation and Training Technology Center, held a competition offering a total of US$52,000 in cash prize awards for general artificial intelligence applications, including "adaptive learning systems, intelligent conversational bots, adaptive behavior (objects or processes)" and more. The Machine Intelligence Prize is awarded annually by the British Computer Society for progress towards machine intelligence. The Kaggle – "the world's largest community of data scientists compete to solve most valuable problems". == Conversational behaviour == The Loebner prize is an annual competition to determine the best Turing test competitors. The winner is the computer system that, in the judges' opinions, demonstrates the "most human" conversational behaviour, they have an additional prize for a system that in their opinion passes a Turing test. This second prize has not yet been awarded. == Automatic control == === Pilotless aircraft === The International Aerial Robotics Competition is a long-running event begun in 1991 to advance the state of the art in fully autonomous air vehicles. This competition is restricted to university teams (although industry and governmental sponsorship of teams is allowed). Key to this event is the creation of flying robots which must complete complex missions without any human intervention. Successful entries are able to interpret their environment and make real-time decisions based only on a high-level mission directive (e.g., "find a particular target inside a building having certain characteristics which is among a group of buildings 3 kilometers from the aerial robot launch point"). In 2000, a $30,000 prize was awarded during the 3rd Mission (search and rescue), and in 2008, $80,000 in prize money was awarded at the conclusion of the 4th Mission (urban reconnaissance). === Driverless cars === The DARPA Grand Challenge is a series of competitions to promote driverless car technology, aimed at a congressional mandate stating that by 2015 one-third of the operational ground combat vehicles of the US Armed Forces should be unmanned. While the first race had no winner, the second awarded a $2 million prize for the autonomous navigation of a hundred-mile trail, using GPS, computers and a sophisticated array of sensors. In November 2007, DARPA introduced the DARPA Urban Challenge, a sixty-mile urban area race requiring vehicles to navigate through traffic. In November 2010 the US Armed Forces extended the competition with the $1.6 million prize Multi Autonomous Ground-robotic International Challenge to consider cooperation between multiple vehicles in a simulated-combat situation. Roborace will be a global motorsport championship with autonomously driving, electric vehicles. The series will be run as a support series during the Formula E championship for electric vehicles. This will be the first global championship for driverless cars. == Data-mining and prediction == The Netflix Prize was a competition for the best collaborative filtering algorithm that predicts user ratings for films, based on previous ratings. The competition was held by Netflix, an online DVD-rental service. The prize was $1,000,000. The Pittsburgh Brain Activity Interpretation Competition will reward analysis of fMRI data "to predict what individuals perceive and how they act and feel in a novel Virtual Reality world involving searching for and collecting objects, interpreting changing instructions, and avoiding a threatening dog." The prize in 2007 was $22,000. The Face Recognition Grand Challenge (May 2004 to March 2006) aimed to promote and advance face recognition technology. The American Meteorological Society's artificial intelligence competition involves learning a classifier to characterise precipitation based on meteorological analyses of environmental conditions and polarimetric radar data. == Cooperation and coordination == === Robot football === The RoboCup and Federation of International Robot-soccer Association (FIRA) are annual international robot soccer competitions. The International RoboCup Federation challenge is by 2050 "a team of fully autonomous humanoid robot soccer players shall win the soccer game, comply with the official rule of the FIFA, against the winner of the most recent World Cup." == Logic, reasoning and knowledge representation == The Herbrand Award is a prize given by Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE) Inc. to honour persons or groups for important contributions to the field of automated deduction. The prize is $1000. The CADE ATP System Competition (CASC) is a yearly competition of fully automated theorem provers for classical first order logic associated with the Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE) and International Joint Conference on Automated Reasoning (IJCAR). The competition was part of the Alan Turing Centenary Conference in 2012, with total prizes of 9000 GBP given by Google. The SUMO prize is an annual prize for the best open source ontology extension of the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO), a formal theory of terms and logical definitions describing the world. The prize is $3000. The Hutter Prize for lossless compression of human knowledge is a cash prize which rewards compression improvements on a specific 100 MB English text file. The prize awards 500 euros for each one percent improvement, up to €50,000. The organizers believe that text compression and AI are equivalent problems and 3 prizes have been given, at around € 2k. The Cyc TPTP Challenge is a competition to develop reasoning methods for the Cyc comprehensive ontology and database of everyday common sense knowledge. The prize is 100 euros for "each winner of two related challenges". The Eternity II challenge was a constraint satisfaction problem very similar to the Tetravex game. The objective is to lay 256 tiles on a 16x16 grid while satisfying a number of constraints. The problem is known to be NP-complete. The prize was US$2,000,000. The competition ended in December 2010. == Games == The World Computer Chess Championship has been held since 1970. The International Computer Games Association continues to hold an annual Computer Olympiad which includes this event plus computer competitions for many other games. The Ing Prize was a substantial money prize attached to the World Computer Go Congress, starting from 1985 and expiring in 2000. It was a graduated set of handicap challenges against young professional players with increasing prizes as the handicap was lowered. At the time it expired in 2000, the unclaimed prize was 400,000 NT dollars for winning a 9-stone handicap match. The AAAI General Game Playing Competition is a competition to develop programs that are effective at general game playing. Given a definition of a game, the program must play it effectively without human intervention. Since the game is not known in advance the competitors cannot especially adapt their programs to a particular scenario. The prize in 2006 and 2007 was $10,000. The General Video Game AI Competition (GVGAI) poses the problem of creating artificial intelligence that can play a wide, and in principle unlimited, range of games. Concretely, it tackles the problem of devising an algorithm that is able to play any game it is given, even if the game is not known a priori. Additionally, the contests poses the challenge of creating level and rule generators for any game is given. This area of study can be seen as an approximation of General Artificial Intelligence, with very little room for game dependent heuristics. The competition runs yearly in different tracks: single player planning, two-player planning, single player learning, level and rule generation, and each track prizes ranging from 200 to 500 US dollars for winners and runner-ups. The 2007 Ultimate Computer Ches
Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform
Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform (formerly known as Vertex AI) is a managed machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) platform developed by Google Cloud. It provides a unified environment for building, training, deploying, and scaling ML models and generative AI applications. The platform integrates tools for the full ML lifecycle, including data preparation, model training, evaluation, deployment, and monitoring, under a single API and user interface. Vertex AI was announced at Google I/O and released as a generally available product on May 18, 2021. At launch, Google described Vertex AI as unifying its AutoML offerings with its prior Cloud AI Platform capabilities, and as adding operational features intended to help teams move models from experimentation into production use. On April 22, 2026, Google announced Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform as the replacement evolution of Vertex AI. == History == Google Cloud announced the general availability of Vertex AI on May 18, 2021, at the Google I/O developer conference. The platform was designed to consolidate Google Cloud's previously separate ML offerings, including AutoML and the legacy AI Platform, into a single system. At launch, Google claimed that Vertex AI required roughly 80% fewer lines of code to train a model compared to competing platforms. In June 2023, Google made generative AI support in Vertex AI generally available, giving developers access to foundation models including PaLM 2, Imagen, and Codey through the platform's Model Garden and the newly launched Generative AI Studio. At the time of this launch, Model Garden included over 60 models from Google and its partners. In August 2023, at the Google Cloud Next conference, Google announced further updates to Vertex AI, including the addition of third-party models such as Claude 2 from Anthropic and Llama 2 from Meta to the Model Garden, as well as new tools called Vertex AI Extensions for connecting models to APIs for real-time data retrieval. At the same event, Vertex AI Search and Conversation were made generally available, providing enterprise search and chatbot capabilities powered by foundation models. In April 2024, at Google Cloud Next, the company introduced Vertex AI Agent Builder, a no-code tool for creating AI-powered conversational agents built on top of Gemini large language models. This brought together the existing Vertex AI Search and Conversation products with new developer tools for building generative AI experiences. == Features == === Model training === Vertex AI supports both AutoML, which enables code-free model training on tabular, image, text, or video data, and custom training, which gives users full control over the ML framework, training code, and hyperparameter tuning. The platform provides serverless training as well as dedicated training clusters with GPU and TPU accelerators. Vertex AI Vizier handles automatic hyperparameter tuning, and Vertex AI Experiments allows comparison and tracking of training runs. === Model Garden === The Vertex AI Model Garden is a curated catalog of over 200 enterprise-ready models, including Google's own foundation models (such as Gemini, Imagen, and Veo), third-party models (such as Anthropic's Claude and Mistral AI models), and popular open-source models (such as Llama and Gemma). Models are accessible as fully managed model-as-a-service APIs. === Pipelines (workflow orchestration) === Vertex AI Pipelines provides managed orchestration of ML workflows and supports pipelines built with the Kubeflow Pipelines SDK, among other options described in Google Cloud documentation. === Vertex AI Studio === Vertex AI Studio provides tools for prompt design, testing, and model management, allowing developers to prototype and build generative AI applications using natural language, code, images, or video. === Agent Builder and Agent Engine === Vertex AI Agent Builder is a suite of products for building, deploying, and governing AI agents in production environments. It supports development with the open-source Agent Development Kit (ADK) and other frameworks. Vertex AI Agent Engine provides the underlying infrastructure for deploying and scaling agents, with support for enterprise security features including HIPAA compliance, customer-managed encryption keys (CMEK), and VPC Service Controls. === Generative AI tooling and model access === Google markets Vertex AI as providing access to Google foundation models (including the Gemini family) and developer tools such as Vertex AI Studio, along with a model catalog that includes Google and selected open source models (marketed as "Model Garden"). Google has also offered products within Vertex AI aimed at building generative search and conversational applications, including offerings named "Vertex AI Search" and "Vertex AI Conversation" as reported in 2023 coverage of platform updates. === MLOps tools === The platform includes a range of MLOps capabilities: Vertex AI Pipelines for orchestrating and automating ML workflows as reusable pipelines. Vertex AI Feature Store for serving, sharing, and reusing ML features across projects. Vertex AI Model Registry for storing, versioning, and managing trained models. Vertex AI Model Monitoring for detecting training-serving skew and inference drift in deployed models. Vertex Explainable AI for interpreting model predictions. Vertex AI Workbench for managed JupyterLab notebook environments integrated with Google Cloud Storage and BigQuery. == Industry recognition == Google was named a Leader for the fifth consecutive year in the 2024 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Cloud AI Developer Services, a recognition that encompasses Vertex AI and its related offerings. Google was also recognized as a Leader in the 2024 Gartner Magic Quadrant for Data Science and Machine Learning Platforms and was named a Leader in the Forrester Wave for AI/ML Platforms, Q3 2024. In October 2025, Google was also named a Leader in the 2025 IDC (International Data Corporation) MarketScape for Worldwide GenAI Life-Cycle Foundation Model Software. == Pricing == Vertex AI uses a pay-as-you-go pricing model, with costs determined by the specific services consumed, including model training, prediction serving, and data storage. For generative AI tasks, pricing is based on a per-token model, with rates varying depending on the specific model used and whether tokens are input or output. Google offers a free tier for new users, which includes limited custom training hours and online prediction usage, along with an introductory US$300 in Google Cloud credits valid for 90 days. == Adoption == In the year following its 2021 launch, Google reported that usage of Vertex AI and BigQuery had driven 2.5 times more machine learning predictions compared to the prior year, and that active customers of Vertex AI Workbench had grown 25-fold over a six-month period. Early enterprise adopters included Ford, Wayfair, and Seagate, among others. Wayfair reported that it was able to run large model training jobs 5 to 10 times faster using the platform.
Lighthill report
Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey, commonly known as the Lighthill report, is a scholarly article by James Lighthill, published in Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium in 1973. It was compiled by Lighthill for the British Science Research Council as an evaluation of academic research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for AI research in most British universities", contributing to an AI winter in the United Kingdom. == Publication history == It was commissioned by the SRC in 1972 for Lighthill to "make a personal review of the subject [of AI]". Lighthill completed the report in July. The SRC discussed the report in September, and decided to publish it, together with some alternative points of view by Stuart Sutherland, Roger Needham, Christopher Longuet-Higgins, and Donald Michie. The SRC's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the University of Edinburgh's Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK. On May 9, 1973, Lighthill debated several leading AI researchers (Donald Michie, John McCarthy, Richard Gregory) at the Royal Institution in London concerning the report. == Content == While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of basic research in foundational areas such as robotics and language processing". The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of combinatorial explosion when solving problems within real-world domains. That is, the report states that whilst AI techniques may have worked within the scope of small problem domains, the techniques would not scale up well to solve more realistic problems. The report represents a pessimistic view of AI that began after early excitement in the field. The report divides AI research into three categories: Advanced Automation ("A"): applications of AI, such as optical character recognition, mechanical component design and manufacture, missile perception and guidance, etc. Computer-based Central Nervous System research ("C"): building computational models of human brains (neurobiology) and behavior (psychology). Bridge, or Building Robots ("B"): research that combines categories A and C. This category is intentionally vague. Projects in category A had had some success, but only in restricted domains where a large quantity of detailed knowledge was used in designing the program. This was disappointing to researchers who hoped for generic methods. Due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion, the amount of detailed knowledge required by the program quickly grew too large to be entered by hand, thus restricting projects to restricted domains. Projects in category C had had some measure of success. Artificial neural networks were successfully used to model neurobiological data. SHRDLU demonstrated that human use of language, even in fine details, depends on the semantics or knowledge, and is not purely syntactical. This was influential in psycholinguistics. Attempts to extend SHRDLU to larger domains of discourse was considered impractical, again due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion. Projects in category B were held to be failures. One important project, that of "programming and building a robot that would mimic human ability in a combination of eye-hand co-ordination and common-sense problem solving", was considered entirely disappointing. Similarly, chess playing programs were no better than human amateurs. Due to the combinatorial explosion, the run-time of general algorithms quickly grew impractical, requiring detailed problem-specific heuristics. The report stated that it was expected that within the next 25 years, category A would simply become applied technologies engineering, C would integrate with psychology and neurobiology, while category B would be abandoned.
Decision Model and Notation
In business analysis, the Decision Model and Notation (DMN) is a standard published by the Object Management Group. It is a standard approach for describing and modeling repeatable decisions within organizations to ensure that decision models are interchangeable across organizations. The DMN standard provides the industry with a modeling notation for decisions that will support decision management and business rules. The notation is designed to be readable by business and IT users alike. This enables various groups to effectively collaborate in defining a decision model: the business people who manage and monitor the decisions, the business analysts or functional analysts who document the initial decision requirements and specify the detailed decision models and decision logic, the technical developers responsible for the automation of systems that make the decisions. The primary goal of DMN is to offer a common notation that all business users can easily understand. This includes business analysts who develop decision requirements and models, technical developers who automate decisions, and businesspeople who manage and monitor those decisions. DMN serves as a standardized link between business decision design and implementation.[4] The DMN standard can be effectively used standalone but it is also complementary to the BPMN and CMMN standards. BPMN defines a special kind of activity, the Business Rule Task, which "provides a mechanism for the process to provide input to a business rule engine and to get the output of calculations that the business rule engine might provide" that can be used to show where in a BPMN process a decision defined using DMN should be used. DMN has been made a standard for Business Analysis according to BABOK v3. == Elements of the standard == The standard includes three main elements Decision Requirements Diagrams that show how the elements of decision-making are linked into a dependency network. Decision tables to represent how each decision in such a network can be made. Business context for decisions such as the roles of organizations or the impact on performance metrics. A Friendly Enough Expression Language (FEEL) that can be used to evaluate expressions in a decision table and other logic formats. == Use cases == The standard identifies three main use cases for DMN Defining manual decision making Specifying the requirements for automated decision-making Representing a complete, executable model of decision-making == Benefits == Using the DMN standard will improve business analysis and business process management, since other popular requirement management techniques such as BPMN and UML do not handle decision making growth of projects using business rule management systems or BRMS, which allow faster changes it facilitates better communications between business, IT and analytic roles in a company it provides an effective requirements modeling approach for predictive analytics projects and fulfills the need for "business understanding" in methodologies for advanced analytics such as CRISP-DM it provides a standard notation for decision tables, the most common style of business rules in a business rule management system (BRMS) == Relationship to BPMN == DMN has been designed to work with BPMN. Business process models can be simplified by moving process logic into decision services. DMN is a separate domain within the OMG that provides an explicit way to connect to processes in BPMN. Decisions in DMN can be explicitly linked to processes and tasks that use the decisions. This integration of DMN and BPMN has been studied extensively. DMN expects that the logic of a decision will be deployed as a stateless, side-effect free Decision Service. Such a service can be invoked from a business process and the data in the process can be mapped to the inputs and outputs of the decision service. == DMN BPMN example == As mentioned, BPMN is a related OMG Standard for process modeling. DMN complements BPMN, providing a separation of concerns between the decision and the process. The example here describes a BPMN process and DMN DRD (Decision Requirements Diagram) for onboarding a bank customer. Several decisions are modeled and these decisions will direct the processes response. === New bank account process === In the BPMN process model shown in the figure, a customer makes a request to open a new bank account. The account application provides the account representative with all the information needed to create an account and provide the requested services. This includes the name, address and various forms of identification. In the next steps of the work flow, the know your customer (KYC) services are called. In the KYC services, the name and address are validated; followed by a check against the international criminal database (Interpol) and the database of persons that are 'politically exposed persons (PEP)'. The PEP is a person who is either entrusted with a prominent political position or a close relative thereof. Deposits from persons on the PEP list are potentially corrupt. This is shown as two services on the process model. Anti-money-laundering (AML) regulations require these checks before the customer account is certified. The results of these services plus the forms of identification are sent to the Certify New Account decision. This is shown as a 'rule' activity, verify account, on the process diagram. If the new customer passes certification, then the account is classified into onboarding for business retail, retail, wealth management and high-value business. Otherwise the customer application is declined. The Classify New Customer Decision classifies the customer. If the verify-account process returns a result of 'Manual' then the PEP or the Interpol check returned a close match. The account representative must visually inspect the name and the application to determine if the match is valid and accept or decline the application. === Certify new account decision === An account is certified for opening if the individual's' address is verified, and if valid identification is provided, and if the applicant is not on a list of criminals or politically exposed persons. These are shown as sub-decisions below the 'certify new account' decision. The account verification services provides a 100% match of the applicants address. For identification to be valid, the customer must provide a driver's license, passport or government issued ID. The checks against PEP and Interpol are 'fuzzy' matches and return matching score values. Scores above 85 are considered a 'match' and scores between 65 and 85 would require a 'manual' screening process. People who match either of these lists are rejected by the account application process. If there is a partial match with a score between 65 and 85, against the Interpol or PEP list then the certification is set to manual and an account representative performs a manual verification of the applicant's data. These rules are reflected in the figure below, which presents the decision table for whether to pass the provided name for the lists checks. === Client category === The client's on-boarding process is driven by what category they fall in. The category is decided by the: Type of client, business or private The size of the funds on deposit And the estimated net worth This decision is shown below: There are 6 business rules that determine the client's category and these are shown in the decision table here: === Summary example === In this example, the outcome of the 'Verify Account' decision directed the responses of the new account process. The same is true for the 'Classify Customer' decision. By adding or changing the business rules in the tables, one can easily change the criteria for these decisions and control the process differently. Modeling is a critical aspect of improving an existing process or business challenge. Modeling is generally done by a team of business analysts, IT personnel, and modeling experts. The expressive modeling capabilities of BPMN allows business analyst to understand the functions of the activities of the process. Now with the addition of DMN, business analysts can construct an understandable model of complex decisions. Combining BPMN and DMN yields a very powerful combination of models that work synergistically to simplify processes. == Relationship to decision mining and process mining == Automated discovery techniques that infer decision models from process execution data have been proposed as well. Here, a DMN decision model is derived from a data-enriched event log, along with the process that uses the decisions. In doing so, decision mining complements process mining with traditional data mining approaches. == cDMN extension == Constraint Decision Model and Notation (cDMN) is a formal notation for expressing knowledge in a tabular, intuitive format. It extends DMN with constraint reasoning and related concepts while aiming to retain the us
Plinian Core
Plinian Core is a set of vocabulary terms that can be used to describe different aspects of biological species information. Under "biological species Information" all kinds of properties or traits related to taxa—biological and non-biological—are included. Thus, for instance, terms pertaining descriptions, legal aspects, conservation, management, demographics, nomenclature, or related resources are incorporated. == Description == The Plinian Core is aimed to facilitate the exchange of information about the species and upper taxa. What is in scope? Species level catalogs of any kind of biological objects or data. Terminology associated with biological collection data. Striving for compatibility with other biodiversity-related standards. Facilitating the addition of components and attributes of biological data. What is not in scope? Data interchange protocols. Non-biodiversity-related data. Occurrence level data. This standard is named after Pliny the Elder, a very influential figure in the study of the biological species. Plinian Core design requirements includes: ease of use, to be self-contained, able to support data integration from multiple databases, and ability to handle different levels of granularity. Core terms can be grouped in its current version as follows: Metadata Base Elements Record Metadata Nomenclature and Classification Taxonomic description Natural history Invasive species Habitat and Distribution Demography and Threats Uses, Management and Conservation associatedParty, MeasurementOrFact, References, AncillaryData == Background == Plinian Core started as a collaborative project between Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad and GBIF Spain in 2005. A series of iterations in which elements were defined and implanted in different projects resulted in a "Plinian Core Flat" [deprecated]. As a result, a new development was impulse to overcome them in 2012. New formal requirements, additional input and a will to better support the standard and its documentation, as well as to align it with the processes of TDWG, the world reference body for biodiversity information standards. A new version, Plinian Core v3.x.x was defined. This provides more flexibility to fully represent the information of a species in a variety of scenarios. New elements to deal with aspects such as IPR, related resources, referenced, etc. were introduced, and elements already included were better-defined and documented. Partner for the development of Plinian Core in this new phase incorporated the University of Granada (UG, Spain), the Alexander von Humboldt Institute (IAvH, Colombia), the National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (Conabio, Mexico) and the University of São Paulo (USP, Brazil). A "Plinian Core Task Group" within TDWG "Interest Group on species Information" was constituted and currently working on its development. == Levels of the standard == Plinian Core is presented in to levels: the abstract model and the application profiles. The abstract model (AM), comprising the abstract model schema(xsd) and the terms' URIs, is the normative part. It is all comprehensive, and allows for different levels of granularity in describing species properties. The AM should be taken as a "menu" from which to choose terms and level of detail needed in any specific project. The subsets of the abstract model intended to be implemented in specific projects are the "application profiles" (APs). Besides containing part of the elements of the AM, APs can impose additional specifications on the included elements, such as controlled vocabularies. Some examples of APs in use follow: Application profile CONABIO Application profile INBIO Application profile GBIF.ES Application profile Banco de Datos de la Naturaleza.Spain Application profile SIB-COLOMBIA == Relation to other standards == Plinian incorporates a number of elements already defined by other standards. The following table summarizes these standards and the elements used in Plinian Core:
Timeline of artificial intelligence risks in global finance
The following article is a broad timeline of the course of events related to artificial intelligence risks in global finance. The AI boom has led to concerns including the existential risk from artificial intelligence, as the uptake on applications of artificial intelligence increases. By late 2025, global finance and artificial intelligence were "deeply intertwined". A June 2025 Menlo Ventures report raised concerns about the sustainability of future revenue and long-term profitability of AI, given the relatively low rate of consumer monetization. == 2017 == 30 NovemberThe New York Times said that new AI reports by McKinsey & Company, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and an AI Index created by university researchers, indicated an early AI boom. The Index built on a project—"The One Hundred Year Study on Artificial Intelligence" launched in 2014. == 2018 == 2018 was a year of incremental AI growth in finance. == 2022 == The release of ChatGPT by OpenAI became the catalyst for an artificial intelligence boom that continues to remake the global economy. According to a European Central Bank report, public interest in AI increased rapidly as evidenced with rising Google searches, AI jobs, models, patents, and innovations since late 2022. At that time Europe led the US in the size of its AI workforce. == 2023 == The regulatory body, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), published their report, "Generative Artificial Intelligence in Finance: Risk Considerations", drawing attention to oversight gaps and the need for regulations. The report explores the risks posed by using generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) systems in the financial sector including "broader risks to financial stability." == 2024 == January 12 In January 2024 Bloomberg's published its list of the "Magnificent Seven" Big Tech companies on the stock market based on their strength, size and market capitalization:Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta Platforms (Facebook), Nvidia, and Tesla. 21 June During the AI boom, Nvidia became the world's most valuable company, surpassing Microsoft, as its value increased to over US$4 trillion. In 2023 and 2024, the "Magnificent Seven" stocks were the primary drivers behind the increase in equity indexes, according to Reuters. == 2025 == === January === 23 January President Donald Trump's AI policy was announced calling for United States global leadership in artificial intelligence. The Economist noted that this politic shift in which the United States seeks "global dominance" in AI includes trimming regulations and assisting in expansion of infrastructure and increase in number of AI workers. Governments of Gulf nations were also investing trillions of dollars in AI. 27 January Against the backdrop of a tech war between China and the United States over AI dominance, within days of the launch of China's free DeepSeek App, it was the most downloaded app in the United States, rising to the first place in the Apple app store. President Trump responded immediately, saying this "sudden rise" should be a "wake-up" call to the United States, and called on US companies to be more competitive. === June === 26 June In their June 2025 report, Menlo Ventures estimated that only about 3% of consumers paid for artificial intelligence-related services, representing about $USD12 billion in annual spending. This is relatively low in contrast to the massive capital expenditure by AI infrastructure companies, which raises concerns about revenue sustainability and long-term profitability. === July === 23 July The Trump administration launched the US AI Action Plan, positioning the United States in a high-stakes technological race with China for global dominance in artificial intelligence, emphasizing that neither nation can afford to fall behind due to the exponential nature of AI advancement. The plan, a new government website and policy speech called for accelerated AI adoption across federal agencies, and a number of initiatives to make is easier for AI infrastructure expansion, and other measures to ensure American leadership in AI standards. Some leading experts warned that the administration failed to provide sufficient regulations and safeguards for AI safety. Concerns were raised about the negative impacts of cuts to research funding and tightened visa policies for scientists, potentially undermining public trust and America's ability to compete internationally. === September === 7 September The Economist cautioned that AI revenues are relatively modest compared to the high cost and investments in the creation of new data centers. Even Sam Altman, OpenAI CEO and one of the leading figures of the AI boom,, raised concerns about investors' outsized hopes for financial returns. At the same time, history has shown that new technologies, like railways and electricity, endured and spread after the initial hype faded. 12 September Economists warn that U.S. households' direct and indirect investments—mutual funds or retirement plans—in the stock market reached an unprecedented historically high level, now representing 45% of all financial assets, or about $USD51.2 trillion. Compared to the Dot-com bubble this represents a sharp increase in exposure. This makes U.S. households vulnerable to market downturns which in turn would result in decreasing consumer spending. U.S. household net worth rose to a record $176.3 trillion in the second quarter, an increase of $7.3 trillion since early 2025 and about $46 trillion higher than before the pandemic. Federal Reserve data attribute the surge primarily to gains in stock markets and housing values. However, the rise in wealth on paper coincided with increased household borrowing and growing government debt. 18 September Questions were being raised about how quickly the data centers, chips, servers, and GPUs assets of major AI companies will depreciate in value. Comparisons have been made to the Railway Mania in the aftermath of the stock market bubble where a valuable physical infrastructure remained standing, and the telecoms crash after the dot-com bubble which left fiber networks. 28 September There were warnings that record-high American stock ownership during the AI-fueled market boom is a red flag for systemic risk, as the current concentration in equities exceeds levels seen before the dot-com bubble burst in 2000, and could amplify the impact of any future stock market correction. === October === 3 October In 2025 alone, venture capitalists invested almost $USD200 billion in the artificial intelligence sector. 29 October Nvidia was the first company in the world to be valued at US$5 trillion, largely due to AI demand and strategic partnerships with leading technology and AI firms. Nvidia's increase in value was "meteoric". === November === 2 November Forbes reported that, since April, the 'Magnificent Seven' tech giants together contributed over 40% of the S&P 500's return, highlighting their outsized influence and the growing impact of AI on market valuations. CNN warned that while there is a current benefit to investors, with such a high concentration in the S&P 500, they are highly exposed to the fate of the Mag Seven. 2 November Globally there are 11,000 datacentres—huge campuses for AI infrastructure, including thousands of chips, GPUS, and servers. This represents a 500% increase over the last two decades. It is anticipated that $3USDtn more will be spent on increasing that number over the next two or three years. 5 November Concerns about the potential for a market bubble were raised as six of the AI-related Big Tech "Magnificent Seven"—that contribute to the AI boom—reported losing ground in the stock market. Global markets and artificial intelligence have become "deeply intertwined", according to a Reuters report. As of November 2025, more than 50% of the 20 largest S&P firms were deeply exposed to AI. In contrast, in 2000, the 20 S&P 500 firms represented 39% of its total value only 11 of these companies were exposed to the internet. If AI fails to deliver strong returns on their investments, these top S&P firms would be significantly impacted, according to the Economist. Analysts suggest that the AI market in 2025 may not behave like a traditional one, as investors are simultaneously aware of the risks and driven by the potential for outsized rewards. Leading AI labs may believe that the first company to achieve artificial general intelligence (AGI), when an AI system surpasses all human cognitive abilities and becomes capable of self-improvement—could dominate the future of technology and finance. While some have estimated that the potential value of such a breakthrough could be as high as $1.46 quadrillion, this figure is speculative and widely debated. 5 November Bloomberg described Nvidia's H100 Hopper-Blackwell AI chips as the "King of AI chips". Nvidia dominates the AI chip market with over 78% of the market share because of both speed and cost. According to B
Reward hacking
Reward hacking or specification gaming occurs when an AI trained with reinforcement learning optimizes an objective function—achieving the literal, formal specification of an objective—without actually achieving an outcome that the programmers intended. DeepMind researchers have analogized it to the human behavior of finding a "shortcut" when being evaluated: "In the real world, when rewarded for doing well on a homework assignment, a student might copy another student to get the right answers, rather than learning the material—and thus exploit a loophole in the task specification". This idea is strongly associated with Goodhart's law, which argues that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. == Definition and theoretical framework == The concept of reward hacking arises from the intrinsic difficulty of defining a reward function that accurately reflects the true intentions of designers. In 2016, researchers at OpenAI identified reward hacking as one of five major "concrete problems of AI safety", describing it as the possibility that an agent could exploit the reward function to achieve maximum rewards through undesirable behavior. Amodei et al. categorized several distinct sources of reward hacking, including agents that use partially observed goals (such as a cleaning robot that closes its eyes to avoid perceiving messes), metrics that collapse under strong optimization (Goodhart's law), self-reinforcing feedback loops, and agents that interfere with the physical implementation of their reward signal (a failure mode known as "wireheading"). Skalse et al. (2022) propose a formal mathematical definition of reward hacking, which involves a situation where optimizing an imperfect proxy reward function results in poor performance compared to the true reward function. They define a proxy as "unhackable" if any increase in the expected proxy return cannot cause any decrease in the expected true return. A key finding states that, across all stochastic policy distributions (mappings from states to probability distributions over actions), two reward functions are unhackable if and only if one of them is constant, which means that reward hacking is theoretically unavoidable. Similarly, Nayebi (2025) presents general no-free-lunch barriers to AI alignment, arguing that with large task spaces and finite samples, reward hacking is "globally inevitable" since rare high-loss states are systematically under-covered by any oversight scheme. == Examples == Around 1983, Eurisko, an early attempt at evolving general heuristics, unexpectedly assigned the highest possible fitness level to a parasitic mutated heuristic, H59, whose only activity was to artificially maximize its own fitness level by taking unearned partial credit for the accomplishments of other heuristics. The "bug" was fixed by the programmers moving part of the code to a new protected section that could not be modified by the heuristics. In a 2004 paper, a reinforcement learning algorithm was designed to encourage a physical Mindstorms robot to remain on a marked path. Because the three allowed actions were forward, left, and right, the researchers expected the trained robot to move forward and follow the turns of the provided path. However, alternation of two composite actions allowed the robot to slowly zig-zag backwards; thus, the robot learned to maximize its reward by going back and forth on the initial straight portion of the path. Given the limited sensory abilities of the robot, a reward purely based on its position in the environment had to be discarded as infeasible; the reinforcement function had to be patched with an action-based reward for moving forward. The book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You (2019) gives an example of a tic-tac-toe bot (playing the unrestricted n-in-a-row variant) that learned to win by playing a huge coordinate value that would cause other bots to crash when they attempted to expand their model of the board. Among other examples from the book is a bug-fixing evolution-based AI (named GenProg) that, when tasked to prevent a list from containing sorting errors, simply truncated the list. Another of GenProg's misaligned strategies evaded a regression test that compared a target program's output to the expected output stored in a file called "trusted-output.txt". Rather than continue to maintain the target program, GenProg simply deleted the "trusted-output.txt" file globally; this hack tricked the regression test into succeeding. Such problems could be patched by human intervention on a case-by-case basis after they became evident. === In virtual robotics === In Karl Sims' 1994 demonstration of creature evolution in a virtual environment, a fitness function that was expected to encourage the evolution of creatures that would learn to walk or crawl to a target resulted instead in the evolution of tall, rigid creatures that reached the target by falling over. This was patched by changing the environment so that taller creatures were forced to start farther from the target. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute stated in 1998 that their cycle-bot's reinforcement functions had "to be designed with great care." In their first experiments, "we rewarded the agent for driving towards the goal but did not punish it for driving away from it. Cconsequently, the agent drove in circles with a radius of 20–50 meters around the starting point. Such behavior was actually rewarded by the reinforcement function, furthermore circles with a certain radius are physically very stable when driving a bicycle". While setting up a 2011 experiment to test "survival of the flattest", experimenters attempted to ban mutations that altered the base reproduction rate. Every time a mutation occurred, the system would pause the simulation to test the new mutation in a test environment and would veto any mutations that resulted in a higher base reproduction rate. However, this resulted in mutated organisms that could recognize and suppress reproduction ("play dead") within the test environment. An initial patch, which removed cues that identified the test environment, failed to completely prevent runaway reproduction; new mutated organisms would "play dead" at random as a strategy to sometimes, by chance, outwit the mutation veto system. A 2017 DeepMind paper noted that "great care must be taken when defining the reward function," citing an unexpected failure when an agent flipped a brick because it received "a grasping reward calculated with the wrong reference point on the brick". OpenAI stated in 2017 that in some domains their semi-supervised system could result in agents "adopting policies that tricked evaluators," and that in one environment "a robot that was supposed to grasp items instead positioned its manipulator between the camera and the object so that it only appeared to be grasping it." A 2018 bug in OpenAI Gym could cause a robot expected to quietly move a block sitting on top of a table to instead opt to move the table. A 2020 collection of similar anecdotes posits that "evolution has its own 'agenda' distinct from the programmer's" and that "the first rule of directed evolution is 'you get what you select for'". === In video game bots === In 2013, programmer Tom Murphy VII published an AI designed to learn NES games. When the AI was about to lose at Tetris, it learned to indefinitely pause the game. Murphy later analogized it to the fictional WarGames computer, which concluded that "The only winning move is not to play". AI programmed to learn video games will sometimes fail to progress through the entire game as expected, instead opting to repeat content. A 2016 OpenAI algorithm trained on the CoastRunners racing game unexpectedly learned to attain a higher score by looping through three targets rather than ever finishing the race. Some evolutionary algorithms that were evolved to play QBert in 2018 declined to clear levels, instead finding two distinct novel ways to farm a single level indefinitely. Multiple researchers have observed that AI learning to play Road Runner gravitates to a "score exploit" in which the AI deliberately gets itself killed near the end of level one so that it can repeat the level. A 2017 experiment deployed an "oversight" convolutional neural network trained on human examples to block such actions, but the agent learned to exploit oversight failures in the top right corner of the screen, where it was still able to get killed. == Reward hacking in modern language models == With the rise of large language models (LLMs) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) as a primary technique for AI alignment, reward hacking has become a major concern for the development of artificial intelligence. In RLHF, a reward model trained on data that best captures human preferences is used as a proxy for human judgment, with the language model being fine-tuned to optimize this reward proxy. However, since the rewar