BookCorpus (also sometimes referred to as the Toronto Book Corpus) is a dataset consisting of the text of around 7,000 self-published books scraped from the indie ebook distribution website Smashwords. It was the main corpus used to train the initial GPT model by OpenAI, and has been used as training data for other early large language models including Google's BERT. The dataset consists of around 985 million words, and the books that comprise it span a range of genres, including romance, science fiction, and fantasy. The corpus was introduced in a 2015 paper by researchers from the University of Toronto and MIT titled "Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Books". The authors described it as consisting of "free books written by yet unpublished authors," yet this is factually incorrect. These books were published by self-published ("indie") authors who priced them at free; the books were downloaded without the consent or permission of Smashwords or Smashwords authors and in violation of the Smashwords Terms of Service. The dataset was initially hosted on a University of Toronto webpage. An official version of the original dataset is no longer publicly available, though at least one substitute, BookCorpusOpen, has been created. Though not documented in the original 2015 paper, the site from which the corpus's books were scraped is now known to be Smashwords.
Teaspiller
Teaspiller was a US-based web application for customers to find accountants and hire them to do their taxes and accounting online. In 2013 the company was acquired by Intuit, Inc and added to its TurboTax product line. The Teaspiller employees and code were all acquired and the product was renamed as "TurboTax CPA select". It enabled accountants to work remotely with clients (share files, send secure messages, schedule appointments), as well as find new clients looking for their specific skills through a complex search algorithm. This was done through extended profiles containing licensing information, professional histories, user ratings, peer endorsements, association memberships, and practice areas. The service had been called an H&R Block killer by Business Insider as it helped customers find accountants to prepare tax returns online. As of 2011 it had 20,000 US accountants listed on the site. The application was built using the Django framework. == History == Teaspiller was built by Vemdara, LLC, a web company based in New York and founded in 2009 by Amit Vemuri (a former VP at Travelocity). The web application was launched in 2010. In 2013 the company was acquired by Intuit as part of their TurboTax product line and renamed as "TurboTax CPA select".
Ramification problem
In philosophy and artificial intelligence (especially, knowledge based systems), the ramification problem is concerned with the indirect consequences of an action. It might also be posed as how to represent what happens implicitly due to an action or how to control the secondary and tertiary effects of an action. It is strongly connected to, and is opposite the qualification side of, the frame problem. Limit theory helps in operational usage. For instance, in KBE derivation of a populated design (geometrical objects, etc., similar concerns apply in shape theory), equivalence assumptions allow convergence where potentially large, and perhaps even computationally indeterminate, solution sets are handled deftly. Yet, in a chain of computation, downstream events may very well find some types of results from earlier resolutions of ramification as problematic for their own algorithms.
Feigenbaum test
A Feigenbaum test is a variation of the Turing test where a computer system attempts to replicate an expert in a given field such as chemistry or marketing. It is also known, as a subject matter expert Turing test and was proposed by Edward Feigenbaum in a 2003 paper. The concept is also described by Ray Kurzweil in his 2005 book The Singularity is Near. Kurzweil argues that machines who pass this test are an inevitable consequence of Moore's Law.
Retrieval-based Voice Conversion
Retrieval-based Voice Conversion (RVC) is an open source voice conversion AI algorithm that enables realistic speech-to-speech transformations, accurately preserving the intonation and audio characteristics of the original speaker. == Overview == In contrast to text-to-speech systems such as ElevenLabs, RVC differs by providing speech-to-speech outputs instead. It maintains the modulation, timbre and vocal attributes of the original speaker, making it suitable for applications where emotional tone is crucial. The algorithm enables both pre-processed and real-time voice conversion with low latency. This real-time capability marks a significant advancement over previous AI voice conversion technologies, such as So-vits SVC. Its speed and accuracy have led many to note that its generated voices sound near-indistinguishable from "real life", provided that sufficient computational specifications and resources (e.g., a powerful GPU and ample RAM) are available when running it locally and that a high-quality voice model is used. == Technical foundation == Retrieval-based Voice Conversion (RVC) utilizes a hybrid approach that integrates feature extraction with retrieval-based synthesis. Instead of directly mapping source speaker features to the target speaker using statistical models, RVC retrieves relevant segments from a target speech database, aiming to enhance the naturalness and speaker fidelity of the converted speech. At a high level, the RVC system typically comprises three main components: (1) a content feature extractor, such as a phonetic posteriorgram (PPG) encoder or self-supervised models like HuBERT; (2) a vector retrieval module that searches a target voice database for the most similar speech units; and (3) a vocoder or neural decoder that synthesizes waveform output from the retrieved representations. The retrieval-based paradigm aims to mitigate the oversmoothing effect commonly observed in fully neural sequence-to-sequence models, potentially leading to more expressive and natural-sounding speech. Furthermore, with the incorporation of high-dimensional embeddings and k-nearest-neighbor search algorithms, the model can perform efficient matching across large-scale databases without significant computational overhead. Recent RVC frameworks have incorporated adversarial learning strategies and GAN-based vocoders, such as HiFi-GAN, to enhance synthesis quality. These integrations have been shown to produce clearer harmonics and reduce reconstruction errors. == Research developments == Research on RVC has recently explored the use of self-supervised learning (SSL) encoders such as wav2vec 2.0 and HuBERT to replace hand-engineered features like MFCCs. These encoders improve content preservation, especially when source and target speakers have dissimilar speaking styles or accents. Moreover, modern RVC models leverage vector quantization methods to discretize the acoustic space, improving both synthesis accuracy and generalization across unseen speakers. For example, retrieval-augmented VQ models can condition the synthesis stage on quantized speech tokens, which enhances controllability and style transfer. Despite its strengths, RVC still faces limitations related to database coverage, especially in real-time or few-shot settings. Inadequate diversity in the target voice corpus may lead to suboptimal retrieval or unnatural prosody. These advances demonstrate the viability of RVC as a strong alternative to conventional deep learning VC systems, balancing both flexibility and efficiency in diverse voice synthesis applications. == Training process == The training pipeline for retrieval-based voice conversion typically includes a preprocessing step where the target speaker's dataset is segmented and normalized. A pitch extractor such as librosa or DDSP-DDC may be used to obtain fundamental frequency (F0) features. During training, the model learns to map content features from the source speaker to the acoustic representation of the target speaker while maintaining pitch and prosody. The training objective often combines reconstruction loss with feature consistency loss across intermediate layers, and may incorporate cycle consistency loss to preserve speaker identity. Fine-tuning on small datasets is feasible due to the use of pre-trained models, particularly for the SSL encoder and content extractor components. This approach allows transfer learning to be applied effectively, enabling the model to converge faster and generalize better to unseen inputs. Most open implementations support batch training, gradient accumulation, and mixed-precision acceleration (e.g., FP16), especially when utilizing NVIDIA CUDA-enabled GPUs. == Real-time deployment == RVC systems can be deployed in real-time scenarios through WebUI interfaces and streaming audio frameworks. Optimizations include converting the inference graph to ONNX or TensorRT formats, reducing latency. Audio buffers are typically processed in chunks of 0.2–0.5 seconds to ensure minimal delay and seamless conversion. Cross-platform compatibility with tools such as OBS Studio and Voicemeeter enables integration into live streaming, video production, or virtual avatar environments. == Applications and concerns == The technology enables voice changing and mimicry, allowing users to create accurate models of others using only a negligible amount of minutes of clear audio samples. These voice models can be saved as .pth (PyTorch) files. While this capability facilitates numerous creative applications, it has also raised concerns about potential misuse as deepfake software for identity theft and malicious impersonation through voice calls. == Ethical and legal considerations == As with other deep generative models, the rise of RVC technology has led to increasing debate about copyright, consent, and authorship. While some jurisdictions may allow parody or fair use in creative contexts, impersonating living individuals without permission may infringe upon privacy and likeness rights. As a result, some platforms have begun issuing takedown notices against AI-generated voice content that closely mimics celebrities or musicians. === In pop culture === RVC inference has been used to create realistic depictions of song covers, such as replacing original vocals with characters like Twilight Sparkle and Mordecai to have them sing duets of popular music like "Airplanes" and "Somebody That I Used to Know." These AI-generated covers, which can sound strikingly similar to the voice imitated, have gained popularity on platforms like YouTube as humorous memes.
AdTruth
AdTruth is a software product and the digital media division of 41st Parameter, a company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, with regional offices in San Jose, California; London, England; and Munich, Germany. AdTruth allows marketers to recognize and reach target audiences across online devices. AdTruth software identifies users for targeting, tracking, performance tracking across digital media, including mobile and desktop, by analysing patterns in large numbers of advertisements served over the internet, rather than through the use of cookies. == History == AdTruth was founded in 2011 by Ori Eisen of 41st Parameter, to repurpose the company's fraud detection and prevention technology, for use within the advertising industry to accurately target intended audiences, particularly in mobile. Eisen was joined by James Lamberti in the role of vice president and general manager. In 2012 41st Parameter raised $13 million in Series D financing from Norwest Venture Partners, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Jafco Ventures and Georgian Partners, bringing total funding to about $35 million. In May 2012, AdTruth hosted a meeting of digital media executives to discuss Apple’s UDID deprecation, with the intent of developing a device-neutral replacement standard. AdTruth joined the World Wide Web Consortium's Tracking Protection Working Group, which provides guidance for implementing and adhering to Do Not Track policies. AdTruth also worked with privacy firm Truste to create a privacy compliant Do Not Track-style mechanism for mobile. In 2013, the company Experian purchased 41st Parameter, acquiring AdTruth as part of the deal. == Product == AdTruth software helps marketers track, target and retarget consumers using more than 100 parameters, including milliseconds in differences in the internal clock setting, to recognize a particular device anonymously. AdTruth's technology uses non-UDID information to identify a wide range of devices for cookieless ad targeting. Its technology currently has about a 90 percent accuracy rate on iOS, higher on Android and desktop. AdTruth also has mobile web to app bridging capabilities as well as DeviceInsight technology, enabling marketers to identify users across mobile web and app content. 41st Parameter's patented AdTruth technology is being used by MdotM, in response to the deprecation of the UDID that included tracking and targeting capabilities. == Competitors == AdTruth's main competitor is BlueCava, which deploys a similar device-fingerprinting technology.
Business rules engine
A business rules engine is a software system that executes one or more business rules in a runtime production environment. The rules might come from legal regulation ("An employee can be fired for any reason or no reason but not for an illegal reason"), company policy ("All customers that spend more than $100 at one time will receive a 10% discount"), or other sources. A business rule system enables these company policies and other operational decisions to be defined, tested, executed and maintained separately from application code. Rule engines typically support rules, facts, priority (score), mutual exclusion, preconditions, and other functions. Rule engine software is commonly provided as a component of a business rule management system which, among other functions, provides the ability to: register, define, classify, and manage all the rules, verify consistency of rules definitions (”Gold-level customers are eligible for free shipping when order quantity > 10” and “maximum order quantity for Silver-level customers = 15” ), define the relationships between different rules, and relate some of these rules to IT applications that are affected or need to enforce one or more of the rules. == IT use case == In any IT application, business rules can change more frequently than other parts of the application code. Rules engines or inference engines serve as pluggable software components which execute business rules that a business rules approach has externalized or separated from application code. This externalization or separation allows business users to modify the rules without the need for IT intervention. The system as a whole becomes more easily adaptable with such external business rules, but this does not preclude the usual requirements of QA and other testing. == History == An article in Computerworld traces rules engines to the early 1990s and to products from the likes of Pegasystems, Fair Isaac Corp, ILOG and eMerge from Sapiens. == Design strategies == Many organizations' rules efforts combine aspects of what is generally considered workflow design with traditional rule design. This failure to separate the two approaches can lead to problems with the ability to re-use and control both business rules and workflows. Design approaches that avoid this quandary separate the role of business rules and workflows as follows: Business rules produce knowledge; Workflows perform business work. Concretely, that means that a business rule may do things like detect that a business situation has occurred and raise a business event (typically carried via a messaging infrastructure) or create higher level business knowledge (e.g., evaluating the series of organizational, product, and regulatory-based rules concerning whether or not a loan meets underwriting criteria). On the other hand, a workflow would respond to an event that indicated something such as the overloading of a routing point by initiating a series of activities. This separation is important because the same business judgment (mortgage meets underwriting criteria) or business event (router is overloaded) can be reacted to by many different workflows. Embedding the work done in response to rule-driven knowledge creation into the rule itself greatly reduces the ability of business rules to be reused across an organization because it makes them work-flow specific. To create an architecture that employs a business rules engine it is essential to establish the integration between a BPM (Business Process Management) and a BRM (Business Rules Management) platform that is based upon processes responding to events or examining business judgments that are defined by business rules. There are some products in the marketplace that provide this integration natively. In other situations this type of abstraction and integration will have to be developed within a particular project or organization. Most Java-based rules engines provide a technical call-level interface, based on the JSR-94 application programming interface (API) standard, in order to allow for integration with different applications, and many rule engines allow for service-oriented integrations through Web-based standards such as WSDL and SOAP. Most rule engines provide the ability to develop a data abstraction that represents the business entities and relationships that rules should be written against. This business entity model can typically be populated from a variety of sources including XML, POJOs, flat files, etc. There is no standard language for writing the rules themselves. Many engines use a Java-like syntax, while some allow the definition of custom business-friendly languages. Most rules engines function as a callable library. However, it is becoming more popular for them to run as a generic process akin to the way that RDBMSs behave. Most engines treat rules as a configuration to be loaded into their process instance, although some are actually code generators for the whole rule execution instance and others allow the user to choose. == Types of rule engines == There are a number of different types of rule engines. These types (generally) differ in how Rules are scheduled for execution. Most rules engines used by businesses are forward chaining, which can be further divided into two classes: The first class processes so-called production/inference rules. These types of rules are used to represent behaviors of the type IF condition THEN action. For example, such a rule could answer the question: "Should this customer be allowed a mortgage?" by executing rules of the form "IF some-condition THEN allow-customer-a-mortgage". The other type of rule engine processes so-called reaction/Event condition action rules. The reactive rule engines detect and react to incoming events and process event patterns. For example, a reactive rule engine could be used to alert a manager when certain items are out of stock. The biggest difference between these types is that production rule engines execute when a user or application invokes them, usually in a stateless manner. A reactive rule engine reacts automatically when events occur, usually in a stateful manner. Many (and indeed most) popular commercial rule engines have both production and reaction rule capabilities, although they might emphasize one class over another. For example, most business rules engines are primarily production rules engines, whereas complex event processing rules engines emphasize reaction rules. In addition, some rules engines support backward chaining. In this case a rules engine seeks to resolve the facts to fit a particular goal. It is often referred to as being goal driven because it tries to determine if something exists based on existing information. Another kind of rule engine automatically switches between back- and forward-chaining several times during a reasoning run, e.g. the Internet Business Logic system, which can be found by searching the web. A fourth class of rules engine might be called a deterministic engine. These rules engines may forgo both forward chaining and backward chaining, and instead utilize domain-specific language approaches to better describe policy. This approach is often easier to implement and maintain, and provides performance advantages over forward or backward chaining systems. There are some circumstance where fuzzy logic based inference may be more appropriate, where heuristics are used in rule processing, rather than Boolean rules. Examples might include customer classification, missing data inference, customer value calculations, etc. The DARL language and the associated inference engine and editors is an example of this approach. == Rules engines for access control / authorization == One common use case for rules engines is standardized access control to applications. OASIS defines a rules engine architecture and standard dedicated to access control called XACML (eXtensible Access Control Markup Language). One key difference between a XACML rule engine and a business rule engine is the fact that a XACML rule engine is stateless and cannot change the state of any data. The XACML rule engine, called a Policy Decision Point (PDP), expects a binary Yes/No question e.g. "Can Alice view document D?" and returns a decision e.g. Permit / deny.