Knowledge spillover is an exchange of ideas among individuals. Knowledge spillover is usually replaced by terminations of technology spillover, R&D spillover and/or spillover (economics) when the concept is specific to technology management and innovation economics. In knowledge management economics, knowledge spillovers are non-rival knowledge market costs incurred by a party not agreeing to assume the costs that has a spillover effect of stimulating technological improvements in a neighbor through one's own innovation. Such innovations often come from specialization within an industry. There are two kinds of knowledge spillovers: internal and external. Internal knowledge spillover occurs if there is a positive impact of knowledge between individuals within an organization that produces goods and/or services. An external knowledge spillover occurs when the positive impact of knowledge is between individuals outside of a production organization. Marshall–Arrow–Romer (MAR) spillovers, Porter spillovers and Jacobs spillovers are three types of spillovers. == Conceptualizations == === Marshall–Arrow–Romer === Marshall–Arrow–Romer (MAR) spillover has its origins in 1890, where the English economist Alfred Marshall developed a theory of knowledge spillovers. Knowledge spillovers later were extended by economists Kenneth Arrow (1962) and Paul Romer (1986). In 1992, Edward Glaeser, Hedi Kallal, José Scheinkman, and Andrei Shleifer pulled together the Marshall–Arrow–Romer views on knowledge spillovers and accordingly named the view MAR spillover in 1992. Under the Marshall–Arrow–Romer (MAR) spillover view, the proximity of firms within a common industry often affects how well knowledge travels among firms to facilitate innovation and growth. The closer the firms are to one another, the greater the MAR spillover. The exchange of ideas is largely from employee to employee, in that employees from different firms in an industry exchange ideas about new products and new ways to produce goods. The opportunity to exchange ideas that lead to innovations key to new products and improved production methods. Research on the Cambridge IT Cluster (UK) suggests that technological knowledge spillovers might only happen rarely and are less important than other cluster benefits such as labour market pooling. === Porter === Porter (1990), like MAR, argues that knowledge spillovers in specialized, geographically concentrated industries stimulate growth. He insists, however, that local competition, as opposed to local monopoly, fosters the pursuit and rapid adoption of innovation. He gives examples of Italian ceramics and gold jewellery industries, in which hundreds of firms are located together and fiercely compete to innovate since the alternative to innovation is demise. Porter's externalities are maximized in cities with geographically specialized, competitive industries. === Jacobs === Under the Jacobs spillover view, the proximity of firms from different industries affect how well knowledge travels among firms to facilitate innovation and growth. This is in contrast to MAR spillovers, which focus on firms in a common industry. The diverse proximity of a Jacobs spillover brings together ideas among individuals with different perspectives to encourage an exchange of ideas and foster innovation in an industrially diverse environment. Developed in 1969 by urbanist Jane Jacobs and John Jackson the concept that Detroit’s shipbuilding industry from the 1830s was the critical antecedent leading to the 1890s development of the auto industry in Detroit since the gasoline engine firms easily transitioned from building gasoline engines for ships to building them for automobiles. == Incoming and outgoing spillovers == Knowledge spillover has asymmetric directions. The focal entity and receives or outflows know-how to others, creating incoming and outgoing spillovers. Cassiman and Veugelers (2002) use survey data and estimate incoming and outgoing spillover and study the economic impacts. Incoming spillover increases growth opportunity and productivity improvements of receivers, while outgoing spillover leads to free rider problem in the technology competition. Chen et al. (2013) use econometric method to gauge incoming spillover, a way that applies for all companies without survey. They find that incoming spillover explains R&D profits of industrial firms. == Policy implications == As information is largely non-rival in nature, certain measures must be taken to ensure that, for the originator, the information remains a private asset. As the market cannot do this efficiently, public regulations have been implemented to facilitate a more appropriate equilibrium. As a result, the concept of intellectual property rights have developed and ensure the ability of entrepreneurs to temporarily hold on to the profitability of their ideas through patents, copyrights, trade secrets, and other governmental safeguards. Conversely, such barriers to entry prevent the exploitation of informational developments by rival firms within an industry. For example, Wang (2023) indicates that technology spillovers are reduced by 27% to 51% when trade secrets laws are implemented by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in the US. On the other hand, when the research and development of a private firm results in a social benefit, unaccounted for within the market price, often greater than the private return of the firm's research, then a subsidy to offset the underproduction of that benefit might be offered to the firm in return for its continued output of that benefit. Government subsidies are often controversial, and while they might often result in a more appropriate social equilibrium, they could also lead to undesirable political repercussions as such a subsidy must come from taxpayers, some of whom may not directly benefit from the researching firm's subsidized knowledge spillover. The concept of knowledge spillover is also used to justify subsidies to foreign direct investment, as foreign investors help diffuse technology among local firms. == Examples == Business parks are a good specific example of concentrated businesses that may benefit from MAR spillover. Many semiconductor firms intentionally located their research and development facilities in Silicon Valley to take advantage of MAR spillover. In addition, the film industry in Los Angeles, California, and elsewhere relies on a geographic concentration of specialists (directors, producers, scriptwriters, and set designers) to bring together narrow aspects of movie-making into a final product. A general example of a knowledge spillover could be the collective growth associated with the research and development of online social networking tools like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. Such tools have not only created a positive feedback loop, and a host of originally unintended benefits for their users, but have also created an explosion of new software, programming platforms, and conceptual breakthroughs that have perpetuated the development of the industry as a whole. The advent of online marketplaces, the utilization of user profiles, the widespread democratization of information, and the interconnectivity between tools within the industry have all been products of each tool's individual developments. These developments have since spread outside the industry into the mainstream media as news and entertainment firms have developed their own market feedback applications within the tools themselves, and their own versions of online networking tools (e.g. CNN’s iReport).
Lawbot
Lawbots are a broad class of customer-facing legal AI applications that are used to automate specific legal tasks, such as document automation and legal research. The terms robot lawyer and lawyer bot are used as synonyms to lawbot. A robot lawyer or a robo-lawyer refers to a legal AI application that can perform tasks that are typically done by paralegals or young associates at law firms. However, there is some debate on the correctness of the term. Some commentators say that legal AI is technically speaking neither a lawyer nor a robot and should not be referred to as such. Other commentators believe that the term can be misleading and note that the robot lawyer of the future will not be one all-encompassing application but a collection of specialized bots for various tasks. Lawbots use various artificial intelligence techniques or other intelligent systems to limit humans' direct ongoing involvement in certain steps of a legal matter. The user interfaces on lawbots vary from smart searches and step-by-step forms to chatbots. Consumer and enterprise-facing lawbot solutions often do not require direct supervision from a legal professional. Depending on the task, some client-facing solutions used at law firms operate under an attorney supervision. == Levels of autonomy == The following levels of autonomy (LoA) are suggested for automated AI legal reasoning: Level 0 (LoA0): No automation for AI legal reasoning Level 1 (LoA1): Simple assistance automation Level 2 (LoA2): Advanced assistance automation Level 3 (LoA3): Semi-autonomous automation Level 4 (LoA4): Domain automation Level 5 (LoA5): Fully-autonomous automation Level 6 (LoA6): Superhuman automation == Examples == Some legal AI solutions are developed and marketed directly to the customers or consumers, whereas other applications are tools for the attorneys at law firms. There are already hundreds of legal AI solutions that operate in multitude of ways varying in sophistication and dependence on scripted algorithms. One notable legal technology chatbot application is DoNotPay. It had started off as an app for contesting parking tickets, but has since expanded to include features that help users with many different types of legal issues, ranging from consumer protection to immigration rights and other social issues. == Impact on the legal industry == In the 2016 report, Deloitte estimated that more than 110,000 law jobs in just the United Kingdom alone could disappear within the next twenty years due to automation. This change could result in the creation of more highly skilled jobs and in the reduction of paralegal and temporary positions. Deloitte's report asserts that "there is significant potential for high-skilled roles that involve repetitive processes to be automated by smart and self-learning algorithms". According to Lawyers to Engage, between 22% of a lawyer’s work and 35% of a legal assistant’s work can be automated in the US. Top law schools like Harvard have already begun to integrate Artificial Intelligence into the curriculum. Legal tech start-up companies have begun developing applications that assist law firms with completing low-risk legal processes. These applications can enable lawyers to focus on more work that requires their specific expertise. The automation of processes like contract reviewing, enforcement of negotiations (smart contracts) and client intake (expert systems) allows law firms to streamline their procedures and improve efficiency. In addition, automation benefits small-to-medium law firms that do not have the resources to utilize junior talent on such routine tasks. The increase of law firms utilizing automated applications could result into legal tech becoming a necessity in the industry. Digital Reason CEO, Tim Estes, stated that those who refuse the opportunity to integrate AI in their workflow are “most at risk.” In 2018, Forbes reported a 713% increase in investments in legal tech. This rapid growth is reflective of law firms beginning to “cede business to… new model legal providers… that meld technological, business and legal expertise.” == Access to law and justice == It has been widely estimated for at least the last generation that all the programs and resources devoted to ensuring access to justice address only 20% of the civil legal needs of low-income people in the United States. Drawing on this experience, in late 2011, the U.S. government-funded Legal Services Corporation decided to convene a summit of leaders to explore how best to use technology in the access-to-justice community. The group adopted a mission for The Summit on the Use of Technology to Expand Access to Justice (Summit) consistent with the magnitude of the challenge: "to explore the potential of technology to move the United States toward providing some form of effective assistance to 100% of persons otherwise unable to afford an attorney for dealing with essential civil legal needs". In April 2017, joined by Microsoft and Pro Bono Net, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) announced a pilot program to develop online, statewide legal portals to direct individuals with civil legal needs to the most appropriate forms of assistance. == Technological limitations == Current research in subjects such as computational privacy, explainable machine learning, Bayesian deep learning, knowledge-intensive machine learning, and transfer learning reveals that we do not yet have the technology to enable Level 4 to 6 AI lawbots. In 2023, OpenLaw began developing a model called Law Bot, which interacts in a conversational way as an attorney. The dialogue format makes it possible for Law Bot to answer follow-up questions, challenge incorrect premises, and reject inappropriate requests. Currently, they try to ensure it is in full compliance with all laws and regulations while conducting further beta testing before releasing it to the general public.
Freddy II
Freddy (1969–1971) and Freddy II (1973–1976) were experimental robots built in the Department of Machine Intelligence and Perception (later Department of Artificial Intelligence, now part of the School of Informatics at the University of Edinburgh). == Technology == Technical innovations involving Freddy were at the forefront of the 70s robotics field. Freddy was one of the earliest robots to integrate vision, manipulation and intelligent systems as well as having versatility in the system and ease in retraining and reprogramming for new tasks. The idea of moving the table instead of the arm simplified the construction. Freddy also used a method of recognising the parts visually by using graph matching on the detected features. The system used an innovative collection of high level procedures for programming the arm movements which could be reused for each new task. == Lighthill controversy == In the mid 1970s there was controversy about the utility of pursuing a general purpose robotics programme in both the USA and the UK. A BBC TV programme in 1973, referred to as the "Lighthill Debate", pitched James Lighthill, who had written a critical report for the science and engineering research funding agencies in the UK, against Donald Michie from the University of Edinburgh and John McCarthy from Stanford University. The Edinburgh Freddy II and Stanford/SRI Shakey robots were used to illustrate the state-of-the-art at the time in intelligent robotics systems. == Freddy I and II == Freddy Mark I (1969–1971) was an experimental prototype, with 3 degrees-of-freedom created by a rotating platform driven by a pair of independent wheels. The other main components were a video camera and bump sensors connected to a computer. The computer moved the platform so that the camera could see and then recognise the objects. Freddy II (1973–1976) was a 5 degrees of freedom manipulator with a large vertical 'hand' that could move up and down, rotate about the vertical axis and rotate objects held in its gripper around one horizontal axis. Two remaining translational degrees of freedom were generated by a work surface that moved beneath the gripper. The gripper was a two finger pinch gripper. A video camera was added as well as later a light stripe generator. The Freddy and Freddy II projects were initiated and overseen by Donald Michie. The mechanical hardware and analogue electronics were designed and built by Stephen Salter (who also pioneered renewable energy from waves (see Salter's Duck)), and the digital electronics and computer interfacing were designed by Harry Barrow and Gregan Crawford. The software was developed by a team led by Rod Burstall, Robin Popplestone and Harry Barrow which used the POP-2 programming language, one of the world's first functional programming languages. The computing hardware was an Elliot 4130 computer with 384KB (128K 24-bit words) RAM and a hard disk linked to a small Honeywell H316 computer with 16KB of RAM which directly performed sensing and control. Freddy was a versatile system which could be trained and reprogrammed to perform a new task in a day or two. The tasks included putting rings on pegs and assembling simple model toys consisting of wooden blocks of different shapes, a boat with a mast and a car with axles and wheels. Information about part locations was obtained using the video camera, and then matched to previously stored models of the parts. It was soon realised in the Freddy project that the 'move here, do this, move there' style of robot behavior programming (actuator or joint level programming) is tedious and also did not allow for the robot to cope with variations in part position, part shape and sensor noise. Consequently, the RAPT robot programming language was developed by Pat Ambler and Robin Popplestone, in which robot behavior was specified at the object level. This meant that robot goals were specified in terms of desired position relationships between the robot, objects and the scene, leaving the details of how to achieve the goals to the underlying software system. Although developed in the 1970s RAPT is still considerably more advanced than most commercial robot programming languages. The team of people who contributed to the project were leaders in the field at the time and included Pat Ambler, Harry Barrow, Ilona Bellos, Chris Brown, Rod Burstall, Gregan Crawford, Jim Howe, Donald Michie, Robin Popplestone, Stephen Salter, Austin Tate and Ken Turner. Also of interest in the project was the use of a structured-light 3D scanner to obtain the 3D shape and position of the parts being manipulated. The Freddy II robot is currently on display at the Royal Museum in Edinburgh, Scotland, with a segment of the assembly video shown in a continuous loop.
Minion (solver)
Minion is a solver for satisfaction problems. Unlike constraint programming toolkits, which expect users to write programs in a traditional programming language like C++, Java or Prolog, Minion takes a text file which specifies the problem, and solves using only this. This makes using Minion much simpler, at the cost of much less customization. Minion has been shown to be faster than major commercial constraint solvers including CPLEX (formerly IBM ILOG). == Overview == Minion was introduced in 2006 by researchers at the University of St Andrews as a “fast, scalable” solver for large and hard CSP instances. The project provides a compact input language and a low-overhead C++ implementation aimed at throughput and memory efficiency. == Design and features == Minion implements a range of variable and constraint types commonly used in CSP modelling, plus search heuristics and optimisation support. The solver architecture prioritises cache-friendly data structures and specialised propagators. Notably, the developers adapted watched literal techniques from SAT solving to speed up constraint propagation for, among others, Boolean sums, the element global constraint, and table constraints. The modelling approach relies on a plain-text format (parsed by Minion) rather than embedding models into a host programming language. This reduces overhead and supports rapid “model-and-run” experimentation for large benchmark sets. == Performance == In the original evaluation on standard benchmarks, the authors reported that Minion often ran between one and two orders of magnitude faster than state-of-the-art toolkits of the time (including ILOG Solver and Gecode) on large, hard instances, with smaller gains—or slowdowns—on easier problems. Subsequent research has used Minion as a baseline solver in empirical studies and test generation tasks, reflecting its adoption within parts of the constraint programming community. == Applications == Minion has been applied in academic work on combinatorial search, scheduling and test generation, and is available to other environments via wrappers (for example, from the R language).
Ari Holtzman
Ari Holtzman is a professor of Computer Science at the University of Chicago and an expert in the area of natural language processing and computational linguistics. Previously, Holtzman was a PhD student at the University of Washington where he was advised by Luke Zettlemoyer. In 2017, he was a member of the winning team for the inaugural Alexa Prize for developing a conversational AI system for the Amazon Alexa device. Holtzman has made multiple contributions in the area of text generation and language models such as the introduction of nucleus sampling in 2019, his work on AI safety and neural fake news detection, and the fine-tuning of quantized large language models.
Headway (app)
Headway, also known as the Headway App, is an educational technology (EdTech) product that provides short text and audio summaries of nonfiction books. The product was launched in 2019 by Anton Pavlovsky and is developed by Headway Inc, a global consumer tech company that operates in the lifelong learning space. == History == The Headway app was launched in January 2019, with the first version of the application released the same year. In 2021, Headway ranked first globally in downloads within the book summary application niche. In 2022, the application received the Golden Novum Design Award for product design. In 2023 and 2024, Headway appeared in several App Store editorial selections, including App of the Day in multiple countries, and received an Editors’ Choice label in the United States. In April 2025, the application was listed as a Webby Honoree in the Learning & Education category. The company has also launched the Headway Scholarship for Book Lovers. As of 2025, publicly available reporting notes that the Headway app has surpassed 50 million downloads and is among the Top 10 iOS applications by revenue in the Education category worldwide. == Products and features == The Headway app provides short-form summaries of nonfiction books in both text and audio formats. Content is produced by an in-house team of writers, editors, and voice actors. Features include highlighting and saving key insights, spaced repetition for knowledge retention, and offline access to downloaded summaries. The app is available on iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, Android, CarPlay, and Android Auto, and supports multiple languages. == Pricing == Headway operates on a subscription business model, with optional paid plans alongside free access. The company publicly provides its terms of use, privacy policy, subscription details, and AI usage policy on its official website. == Technology and integrations == Headway reports that its book summaries are written and edited manually, while artificial intelligence tools are used in limited supporting functions, such as experimental conversational features and selected marketing processes. == Adoption == According to figures released by the company, the app has exceeded 50 million downloads worldwide. Sensor Tower data indicates that Headway has been the most downloaded application in its niche since October 2020. In January 2025, the app claimed the #1 position in the Education category in both the United States and United Kingdom App Stores and remained among the Top 10 iOS applications globally by revenue within the Education category. == Awards == The Headway app has received several product-level distinctions. In 2023 and 2024, it appeared in multiple App Store editorial selections, including App of the Day features and an Editors’ Choice label in the United States. In 2025, the app was recognized as a Webby Honoree in the Learning & Education category. The product has also been featured in independent media roundups of notable educational applications.
Richard S. Sutton
Richard Stuart Sutton (born 1957 or 1958) is a Canadian computer scientist. He is a professor of computing science at the University of Alberta, fellow & Chief Scientific Advisor at the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute, and a research scientist at Keen Technologies. Sutton is considered one of the founders of modern computational reinforcement learning. In particular, he contributed to temporal difference learning and policy gradient methods. He received the 2024 Turing Award with Andrew Barto. == Education and early life == Richard Sutton was born in either 1957 or 1958 in Toledo, Ohio, and grew up in Oak Brook, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, United States. Sutton received his Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in psychology from Stanford University in 1978 before taking a Master of Science (1980) and PhD (1984) in computer science from the University of Massachusetts Amherst supervised by Andrew Barto. His doctoral dissertation introduced actor-critic architectures and temporal credit assignment. He was influenced by Harry Klopf's work in the 1970s, which proposed that supervised learning is insufficient for AI or explaining intelligent behavior, and trial-and-error learning, driven by "hedonic aspects of behavior", is necessary. This focused his interest to reinforcement learning. == Career and research == Sutton held a postdoctoral research position at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in 1984. He worked at GTE Laboratories in Waltham, Massachusetts as principal member of technical staff from 1985 to 1994, then returned to the University of Massachusetts Amherst as a senior research scientist. He joined AT&T Labs Shannon Laboratory in Florham Park, New Jersey as principal technical staff member from 1998 to 2002. He has been a professor of computing science at the University of Alberta since 2003, where he helped establish the Reinforcement Learning and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. In 2017 he became a distinguished research scientist with Google DeepMind and helped launch DeepMind Alberta in Edmonton, a research office operated in close collaboration with the University of Alberta. 1984: Postdoctoral researcher, University of Massachusetts Amherst (Amherst, Massachusetts) 1985–1994: Principal member of technical staff, Computer and Intelligent Systems Laboratory, GTE Laboratories (Waltham, Massachusetts) 1995–1998: Senior research scientist, University of Massachusetts Amherst (Amherst, Massachusetts) 1998–2002: Principal technical staff member, Artificial Intelligence Department, AT&T Labs Shannon Laboratory (Florham Park, New Jersey) 2003–present: Professor of computing science, University of Alberta (Edmonton, Alberta) 2017–2023: Distinguished research scientist, DeepMind Alberta, Google DeepMind (Edmonton, Alberta) 2024–Present: Research scientist, Keen Technologies === Reinforcement learning === Sutton joined Andrew Barto in the early 1980s at UMass, trying to explore the behavior of neurons in the human brain as the basis for human intelligence, a concept that had been advanced by computer scientist A. Harry Klopf. Sutton and Barto used mathematics toward furthering the concept and using it as the basis for artificial intelligence. This concept became known as reinforcement learning and went on to becoming a key part of artificial intelligence techniques. Barto and Sutton used Markov decision processes (MDP) as the mathematical foundation to explain how agents (algorithmic entities) made decisions when in a stochastic or random environment, receiving rewards at the end of every action. Traditional MDP theory assumed the agents knew all information about the MDPs in their attempt toward maximizing their cumulative rewards. Barto and Sutton's reinforcement learning techniques allowed for both the environment and the rewards to be unknown, and thus allowed for these category of algorithms to be applied to a wide array of problems. Sutton returned to Canada in the 2000s and continued working on the topic which continued to develop in academic circles until one of its first major real world applications saw Google's AlphaGo program built on this concept defeating the then prevailing human champion. Barto and Sutton have widely been credited and accepted as pioneers of modern reinforcement learning, with the technique itself being foundational to the AI boom. In a 2019 essay, Sutton proposed the "bitter lesson", which criticized the field of AI research for failing to learn that "building in how we think we think does not work in the long run", arguing that "70 years of AI research [had shown] that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin", beating efforts building on human knowledge about specific fields like computer vision, speech recognition, chess or Go. Sutton argues that large language models aren’t capable of learning on-the-job, and so new model architectures are required to enable continual learning. Sutton further argues that a special training phase will be unnecessary — the agent will learn on-the-fly, rendering large language models obsolete. In 2023, Sutton and John Carmack announced a partnership for the development of artificial general intelligence (AGI). === Awards and honors === Sutton has been a Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) since 2001; his nomination read: "For significant contributions to many topics in machine learning, including reinforcement learning, temporal difference techniques, and neural networks." In 2003, he received the President's Award from the International Neural Network Society and in 2013, the Outstanding Achievement in Research award from the University of Massachusetts Amherst. He received the 2024 Turing Award from the Association for Computing Machinery together with Andrew Barto; the citation of the award read: "For developing the conceptual and algorithmic foundations of reinforcement learning." In 2016, Sutton was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. In 2021, he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) of London. === Research === Sutton introduced temporal-difference methods for prediction and control, establishing convergence properties and practical algorithms. He proposed integrated learning and planning through the Dyna architecture. He co-developed the options framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning. He co-authored the first modern policy gradient formulation with function approximation. Sutton's essay The Bitter Lesson argued that general methods that scale with computation dominate domain-specific approaches in the long run. His former doctoral students include David Silver and Doina Precup. === Selected publications === His publications include: == Personal life == Sutton became a Canadian citizen in 2015, and his renunciation of US citizenship was reported in 2017.