A technology company, or tech company, is a company that focuses primarily on the manufacturing, support, research and development of—most commonly computing, telecommunication and consumer electronics–based—technology-intensive products and services, which include businesses relating to digital electronics, software, optics, new energy, and Internet-related services such as cloud storage and e-commerce services. Big Tech refers to the 6 largest companies, both in the United States and globally, symbolized by the metonym 'Silicon Valley', where 4 of them are based. == Details == According to Fortune, as of 2020, the ten largest technology companies by revenue are: Apple Inc., Samsung, Foxconn, Alphabet Inc., Microsoft, Huawei, Dell Technologies, Hitachi, IBM, and Sony. Amazon has higher revenue than Apple, but is classified by Fortune in the retail sector. The most profitable listed in 2020 are Apple Inc., Microsoft, Alphabet Inc., Intel, Meta Platforms, Samsung, and Tencent. Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc. (owner of Google), Meta Platforms (owner of Facebook), Microsoft, and Amazon.com, Inc. are often referred to as the Big Five multinational technology companies based in the United States. These five technology companies dominate major functions, e-commerce channels, and information of the entire Internet ecosystem. As of 2017, the Big Five had a combined valuation of over $3.3 trillion and make up more than 40 percent of the value of the Nasdaq-100 index. Many large tech companies have a reputation for innovation, spending large sums of money annually on research and development. According to PwC's 2017 Global Innovation 1000 ranking, tech companies made up nine of the 20 most innovative companies in the world, with the top R&D spender (as measured by expenditure) being Amazon, followed by Alphabet Inc., and then Intel. As a result of numerous influential tech companies and tech startups opening offices in proximity to one another, a number of technology districts have developed in various areas across the globe. These include: Silicon Valley in the San Francisco Bay Area, Silicon Wadi in Israel, Silicon Docks in Dublin, Silicon Hills in Austin, Tech City in London; Digital Media City in Seoul, Zhongguancun in Beijing, Cyberjaya in Malaysia and Cyberabad in Hyderabad, India. As of 2026, Europe has six of the world's 100 most valuable tech companies, compared with 56 in the United States and 16 in China.
Circular convolution
Circular convolution, also known as cyclic convolution, is a special case of periodic convolution, which is the convolution of two periodic functions that have the same period. Periodic convolution arises, for example, in the context of the discrete-time Fourier transform (DTFT). In particular, the DTFT of the product of two discrete sequences is the periodic convolution of the DTFTs of the individual sequences. And each DTFT is a periodic summation of a continuous Fourier transform function (see Discrete-time Fourier transform § Relation to Fourier Transform). Although DTFTs are usually continuous functions of frequency, the concepts of periodic and circular convolution are also directly applicable to discrete sequences of data. In that context, circular convolution plays an important role in maximizing the efficiency of a certain kind of common filtering operation. == Definitions == The periodic convolution of two T-periodic functions, h T ( t ) {\displaystyle h_{_{T}}(t)} and x T ( t ) {\displaystyle x_{_{T}}(t)} can be defined as: ∫ t o t o + T h T ( τ ) ⋅ x T ( t − τ ) d τ , {\displaystyle \int _{t_{o}}^{t_{o}+T}h_{_{T}}(\tau )\cdot x_{_{T}}(t-\tau )\,d\tau ,} where t o {\displaystyle t_{o}} is an arbitrary parameter. An alternative definition, in terms of the notation of normal linear or aperiodic convolution, follows from expressing h T ( t ) {\displaystyle h_{_{T}}(t)} and x T ( t ) {\displaystyle x_{_{T}}(t)} as periodic summations of aperiodic components h {\displaystyle h} and x {\displaystyle x} , i.e.: h T ( t ) ≜ ∑ k = − ∞ ∞ h ( t − k T ) = ∑ k = − ∞ ∞ h ( t + k T ) . {\displaystyle h_{_{T}}(t)\ \triangleq \ \sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }h(t-kT)=\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }h(t+kT).} Then: Both forms can be called periodic convolution. The term circular convolution arises from the important special case of constraining the non-zero portions of both h {\displaystyle h} and x {\displaystyle x} to the interval [ 0 , T ] . {\displaystyle [0,T].} Then the periodic summation becomes a periodic extension, which can also be expressed as a circular function: x T ( t ) = x ( t m o d T ) , t ∈ R {\displaystyle x_{_{T}}(t)=x(t_{\mathrm {mod} \ T}),\quad t\in \mathbb {R} \,} (any real number) And the limits of integration reduce to the length of function h {\displaystyle h} : ( h ∗ x T ) ( t ) = ∫ 0 T h ( τ ) ⋅ x ( ( t − τ ) m o d T ) d τ . {\displaystyle (hx_{_{T}})(t)=\int _{0}^{T}h(\tau )\cdot x((t-\tau )_{\mathrm {mod} \ T})\ d\tau .} == Discrete sequences == Similarly, for discrete sequences, and a parameter N, we can write a circular convolution of aperiodic functions h {\displaystyle h} and x {\displaystyle x} as: ( h ∗ x N ) [ n ] ≜ ∑ m = − ∞ ∞ h [ m ] ⋅ x N [ n − m ] ⏟ ∑ k = − ∞ ∞ x [ n − m − k N ] {\displaystyle (hx_{_{N}})[n]\ \triangleq \ \sum _{m=-\infty }^{\infty }h[m]\cdot \underbrace {x_{_{N}}[n-m]} _{\sum _{k=-\infty }^{\infty }x[n-m-kN]}} This function is N-periodic. It has at most N unique values. For the special case that the non-zero extent of both x and h are ≤ N, it is reducible to matrix multiplication where the kernel of the integral transform is a circulant matrix. == Example == A case of great practical interest is illustrated in the figure. The duration of the x sequence is N (or less), and the duration of the h sequence is significantly less. Then many of the values of the circular convolution are identical to values of x∗h, which is actually the desired result when the h sequence is a finite impulse response (FIR) filter. Furthermore, the circular convolution is very efficient to compute, using a fast Fourier transform (FFT) algorithm and the circular convolution theorem. There are also methods for dealing with an x sequence that is longer than a practical value for N. The sequence is divided into segments (blocks) and processed piecewise. Then the filtered segments are carefully pieced back together. Edge effects are eliminated by overlapping either the input blocks or the output blocks. To help explain and compare the methods, we discuss them both in the context of an h sequence of length 201 and an FFT size of N = 1024. === Overlapping input blocks === This method uses a block size equal to the FFT size (1024). We describe it first in terms of normal or linear convolution. When a normal convolution is performed on each block, there are start-up and decay transients at the block edges, due to the filter latency (200-samples). Only 824 of the convolution outputs are unaffected by edge effects. The others are discarded, or simply not computed. That would cause gaps in the output if the input blocks are contiguous. The gaps are avoided by overlapping the input blocks by 200 samples. In a sense, 200 elements from each input block are "saved" and carried over to the next block. This method is referred to as overlap-save, although the method we describe next requires a similar "save" with the output samples. When an FFT is used to compute the 824 unaffected DFT samples, we don't have the option of not computing the affected samples, but the leading and trailing edge-effects are overlapped and added because of circular convolution. Consequently, the 1024-point inverse FFT (IFFT) output contains only 200 samples of edge effects (which are discarded) and the 824 unaffected samples (which are kept). To illustrate this, the fourth frame of the figure at right depicts a block that has been periodically (or "circularly") extended, and the fifth frame depicts the individual components of a linear convolution performed on the entire sequence. The edge effects are where the contributions from the extended blocks overlap the contributions from the original block. The last frame is the composite output, and the section colored green represents the unaffected portion. === Overlapping output blocks === This method is known as overlap-add. In our example, it uses contiguous input blocks of size 824 and pads each one with 200 zero-valued samples. Then it overlaps and adds the 1024-element output blocks. Nothing is discarded, but 200 values of each output block must be "saved" for the addition with the next block. Both methods advance only 824 samples per 1024-point IFFT, but overlap-save avoids the initial zero-padding and final addition.
Prompt engineering
Prompt engineering is the process of structuring natural language inputs (known as prompts) to produce specified outputs from a generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) model. Context engineering is the related area of software engineering that focuses on the management of non-prompt contexts supplied to the GenAI model, such as metadata, API tools, and tokens. It can also be defined as the practice of designing and refining input instructions given to a generative AI model to produce more accurate, relevant, or useful outputs. Effective prompt engineering involves understanding how a model interprets language, and may include techniques such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought prompting, and role assignment. It is increasingly considered a skill for working with large language models (LLMs) in both research and professional contexts. During the 2020s AI boom, prompt engineering became regarded as a business capability across corporations and industries. Employees with the title prompt engineer were hired to create prompts that would increase productivity and efficacy, although the individual title has since lost traction amid AI models that produce better prompts than humans and corporate training in prompting for general employees. Common prompting techniques include multi-shot, chain-of-thought, and tree-of-thought prompting, as well as the use of assigning roles to the model. Automated prompt generation methods, such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), provide for greater accuracy and a wider scope of functions for prompt engineers. Prompt injection is a type of cybersecurity attack that targets machine learning models through malicious prompts. == Terminology == The Oxford English Dictionary defines prompt engineering as "The action or process of formulating and refining prompts for an artificial intelligence program, algorithm, etc., in order to optimize its output or to achieve a desired outcome; the discipline or profession concerned with this." In 2023, prompt ("an instruction given to an artificial intelligence program, algorithm, etc., which determines or influences the content it generates") was the runner-up to Oxford's word of the year. === Prompt === A prompt is some natural language text that describes and prescribes the task that an artificial intelligence (AI) should perform. A prompt for a text-to-text language model can be a query, a command, or a longer statement referencing context, instructions, and conversation history. The process of prompt engineering may involve designing clear queries, refining wording, providing relevant context, specifying the style of output, and assigning a character for the AI to mimic in order to guide the model toward more accurate, useful, and consistent responses. When communicating with a text-to-image or a text-to-audio model, a typical prompt contains a description of a desired output such as "a high-quality photo of an astronaut riding a horse" or "Lo-fi slow BPM electro chill with organic samples". Prompt engineering may be applied to text-to-image models to achieve a desired subject, style, layout, lighting, and aesthetic. === Techniques === Common terms used to describe various specific prompt engineering techniques include chain-of-thought, tree-of-thought, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). A 2024 survey of the field identified over 50 distinct text-based prompting techniques, 40 multimodal variants, and a vocabulary of 33 terms used across prompting research, highlighting a present lack of standardised terminology for prompt engineering. Vibe coding is an AI-assisted software development method where a user prompts an LLM with a description of what they want and lets it generate or edit the code. In 2025, "vibe coding" was the Collins Dictionary word of the year. === Context engineering === Context engineering is a related process that focuses on the context elements that accompany user prompts, which include system instructions, retrieved knowledge, tool definitions, conversation summaries, and task metadata. Context engineering is performed to improve reliability, provenance and token efficiency in production LLM systems. The concept emphasises operational practices such as token budgeting, provenance tags, versioning of context artifacts, observability (logging which context was supplied), and context regression tests to ensure that changes to supplied context do not silently alter system behaviour. == Rationale == Research has found that the performance of large language models (LLMs) is highly sensitive to choices such as the ordering of examples, the quality of demonstration labels, and even small variations in phrasing. In some cases, reordering examples in a prompt produced accuracy shifts of more than 40 percent. === In-context learning === A model's ability to temporarily learn from prompts is known as in-context learning. In-context learning is an emergent ability of large language models. It is an emergent property of model scale, meaning that breaks in scaling laws occur, leading to its efficacy increasing at a different rate in larger models than in smaller models. Unlike training and fine-tuning, which produce lasting changes, in-context learning is temporary. Training models to perform in-context learning can be viewed as a form of meta-learning, or "learning to learn". === Prompting to estimate model sensitivity === Research consistently demonstrates that LLMs are highly sensitive to subtle variations in prompt formatting, structure, and linguistic properties. Some studies have shown up to 76 accuracy points across formatting changes in few-shot settings. Linguistic features significantly influence prompt effectiveness—such as morphology, syntax, and lexico-semantic changes—which meaningfully enhance task performance across a variety of tasks. Clausal syntax, for example, improves consistency and reduces uncertainty in knowledge retrieval. This sensitivity persists even with larger model sizes, additional few-shot examples, or instruction tuning. To address sensitivity of models and make them more robust, several evaluative methods have been proposed. FormatSpread facilitates systematic analysis by evaluating a range of plausible prompt formats, offering a more comprehensive performance interval. Similarly, PromptEval estimates performance distributions across diverse prompts, enabling robust metrics such as performance quantiles and accurate evaluations under constrained budgets. == Prompting techniques == === Multi-shot === A prompt may include a few examples for a model to learn from in context, an approach called few-shot learning. For example, the prompt may ask the model to complete "maison → house, chat → cat, chien →", with the expected response being dog. === Chain-of-thought === Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is a technique that allows large language models (LLMs) to solve a problem as a series of intermediate steps before giving a final answer. In 2022, Google Brain reported that chain-of-thought prompting improves reasoning ability by inducing the model to answer a multi-step problem with steps of reasoning that mimic a train of thought. Chain-of-thought techniques were developed to help LLMs handle multi-step reasoning tasks, such as arithmetic or commonsense reasoning questions. When applied to PaLM, a 540 billion parameter language model, according to Google, CoT prompting significantly aided the model, allowing it to perform comparably with task-specific fine-tuned models on several tasks, achieving state-of-the-art results at the time on the GSM8K mathematical reasoning benchmark. It is possible to fine-tune models on CoT reasoning datasets to enhance this capability further and stimulate better interpretability. As originally proposed by Google, each CoT prompt is accompanied by a set of input/output examples—called exemplars—to demonstrate the desired model output, making it a few-shot prompting technique. However, according to a later paper from researchers at Google and the University of Tokyo, simply appending the words "Let's think step-by-step" was also effective, which allowed for CoT to be employed as a zero-shot technique. ==== Self-consistency ==== Self-consistency performs several chain-of-thought rollouts, then selects the most commonly reached conclusion out of all the rollouts. === Tree-of-thought === Tree-of-thought prompting generalizes chain-of-thought by generating multiple lines of reasoning in parallel, with the ability to backtrack or explore other paths. It can use tree search algorithms like breadth-first, depth-first, or beam. === Text-to-image prompting === In 2022, text-to-image models like DALL-E 2, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney were released to the public. These models take text prompts as input and use them to generate images. Early text-to-image models typically do not understand negation, grammar and sentence structure in the same way as large language models, and may thus requi
Label noise
Label noise refers to errors or inaccuracies in the class labels of data instances. This is a widespread issue in machine learning datasets, arising from human annotator mistakes, unclear labeling instructions, automated labeling methods, or adversarial attacks in supervised learning. Label noise can be roughly divided into random noise, where labels are flipped independently of input features, and systematic noise, where mislabeling is dependent on certain patterns or biases in the data. Label noise can be damaging to model performance, especially for complex models that may overfit to noisy labels rather than generalizable patterns. Many approaches have been proposed to deal with the effects of label noise, including robust loss functions, noise-tolerant algorithms, data cleaning methods, and semi-supervised learning approaches. To reduce the impact of wrong labels during training, techniques like label smoothing, sample reweighting and using trusted validation sets are used. The role of noise-robust training paradigms and curriculum learning strategies to improve resilience against mislabeled data is also explored in recent research.
AI alignment
In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), alignment aims to steer AI systems toward a person's or group's intended goals, preferences, or ethical principles. An AI system is considered aligned if it advances the intended objectives. A misaligned AI system pursues unintended objectives. It is often difficult for AI designers to specify the full range of desired and undesired behaviors. Therefore, the designers often use simpler proxy goals, such as gaining human approval. But proxy goals can overlook necessary constraints or reward the AI system for merely appearing aligned. AI systems may also find loopholes that allow them to accomplish their proxy goals efficiently but in unintended, sometimes harmful, ways (reward hacking). Advanced AI systems may develop unwanted instrumental strategies, such as seeking power or self-preservation because such strategies help them achieve their assigned final goals. Furthermore, they might develop undesirable emergent goals that could be hard to detect before the system is deployed and encounters new situations and data distributions. Empirical research showed in 2024 that advanced large language models (LLMs) such as OpenAI o1 or Claude 3 sometimes engage in strategic deception to achieve their goals or prevent them from being changed. Some of these issues affect existing commercial systems such as LLMs, robots, autonomous vehicles, and social media recommendation engines. Some AI researchers argue that more capable future systems will be more severely affected because these problems partially result from high capabilities. Many prominent AI researchers and AI company leaders have argued or asserted that AI is approaching human-like (AGI) and superhuman cognitive capabilities (ASI), and could endanger human civilization if misaligned. These include "AI godfathers" Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio and the CEOs of OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google DeepMind. These risks remain debated. AI alignment is a subfield of AI safety, the study of how to build safe AI systems. Other subfields of AI safety include robustness, monitoring, and capability control. Research challenges in alignment include instilling complex values in AI, developing honest AI, scalable oversight, auditing and interpreting AI models, and preventing emergent AI behaviors like power-seeking. Alignment research has connections to interpretability research, (adversarial) robustness, anomaly detection, calibrated uncertainty, formal verification, preference learning, safety-critical engineering, game theory, algorithmic fairness, and social sciences. == Objectives in AI == Programmers provide an AI system such as AlphaZero with an "objective function", in which they intend to encapsulate the goal(s) the AI is configured to accomplish. Such a system later populates a (possibly implicit) internal "model" of its environment. This model encapsulates all the agent's beliefs about the world. The AI then creates and executes whatever plan is calculated to maximize the value of its objective function. For example, when AlphaZero is trained on chess, it has a simple objective function of "+1 if AlphaZero wins, −1 if AlphaZero loses". During the game, AlphaZero attempts to execute whatever sequence of moves it judges most likely to attain the maximum value of +1. Similarly, a reinforcement learning system can have a "reward function" that allows the programmers to shape the AI's desired behavior. An evolutionary algorithm's behavior is shaped by a "fitness function". == Alignment problem == In 1960, AI pioneer Norbert Wiener described the AI alignment problem as follows: If we use, to achieve our purposes, a mechanical agency with whose operation we cannot interfere effectively [...] we had better be quite sure that the purpose put into the machine is the purpose which we really desire. AI alignment refers to ensuring that an AI system's objectives match some target. The target is variously defined as the goals of the system's designers or users, widely shared values, objective ethical standards, legal requirements, or the intentions its designers would have if they were more informed and enlightened. In democratic AI alignment, the target is the values and preferences of median voters, which increases political legitimacy. AI alignment is an open problem for modern AI systems and is a research field within AI. Aligning AI involves two main challenges: carefully specifying the purpose of the system (outer alignment) and ensuring that the system adopts the specification robustly (inner alignment). Researchers also attempt to create AI models that have robust alignment, sticking to safety constraints even when users adversarially try to bypass them. === Specification gaming and side effects === To specify an AI system's purpose, AI designers typically provide an objective function, examples, or feedback to the system. But designers are often unable to completely specify all important values and constraints, so they resort to easy-to-specify proxy goals such as maximizing the approval of human overseers, who are fallible. As a result, AI systems can find loopholes that help them accomplish the specified objective efficiently but in unintended, possibly harmful ways. This tendency is known as specification gaming or reward hacking, and is an instance of Goodhart's law. As AI systems become more capable, they are often able to game their specifications more effectively. Specification gaming has been observed in numerous AI systems. OpenAI GPT models for programming—including in real-world cases—have been found to explicitly plan hacking the tests used to evaluate them to falsely appear successful (e.g., explicitly stating "let's hack"). When the company penalized this, many models learned to obfuscate their plans while continuing to hack the tests. Another system was trained to finish a simulated boat race by rewarding the system for hitting targets along the track, but the system achieved more reward by looping and crashing into the same targets indefinitely. A 2025 Palisade Research study found that when tasked to win at chess against a stronger opponent, some reasoning LLMs attempted to hack the game system, for example by modifying or entirely deleting their opponent. Some alignment researchers aim to help humans detect specification gaming and steer AI systems toward carefully specified objectives that are safe and useful to pursue. When a misaligned AI system is deployed, it can have consequential side effects. Social media platforms have been known to optimize their recommendation algorithms for click-through rates, causing user addiction on a global scale. Stanford researchers say that such recommender systems are misaligned with their users because they "optimize simple engagement metrics rather than a harder-to-measure combination of societal and consumer well-being". Explaining such side effects, Berkeley computer scientist Stuart J. Russell said that the omission of implicit constraints can cause harm: "A system [...] will often set [...] unconstrained variables to extreme values; if one of those unconstrained variables is actually something we care about, the solution found may be highly undesirable. This is essentially the old story of the genie in the lamp, or the sorcerer's apprentice, or King Midas: you get exactly what you ask for, not what you want." Some researchers suggest that AI designers specify their desired goals by listing forbidden actions or by formalizing ethical rules (as with Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics). But Russell and Norvig argue that this approach overlooks the complexity of human values: "It is certainly very hard, and perhaps impossible, for mere humans to anticipate and rule out in advance all the disastrous ways the machine could choose to achieve a specified objective." Additionally, even if an AI system fully understands human intentions, it may still disregard them, because following human intentions may not be its objective (unless it is already fully aligned). === Pressure to deploy unsafe systems === Commercial organizations sometimes have incentives to take shortcuts on safety and to deploy misaligned or unsafe AI systems. For example, social media recommender systems have been profitable despite creating unwanted addiction and polarization. Competitive pressure can also lead to a race to the bottom on AI safety standards. For example, OpenAI has been sued for releasing a ChatGPT version that encouraged suicide for some unstable users, a behavior the company had overlooked amid a rushed product release. Similarly, in 2018, a self-driving car killed a pedestrian (Elaine Herzberg) after engineers disabled the emergency braking system because it was oversensitive and slowed development. === Risks from advanced misaligned AI === Some researchers are interested in aligning increasingly advanced AI systems, as progress in AI development is rapid, and industry and governments are trying to build advan
Security of the Java software platform
The Java software platform provides a number of features designed for improving the security of Java applications. This includes enforcing runtime constraints through the use of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), a security manager that sandboxes untrusted code from the rest of the operating system, and a suite of security APIs that Java developers can utilise. Despite this, criticism has been directed at the programming language, and Oracle, due to an increase in malicious programs that revealed security vulnerabilities in the JVM, which were subsequently not properly addressed by Oracle in a timely manner. == Security features == === The JVM === The binary form of programs running on the Java platform is not native machine code but an intermediate bytecode. The JVM performs verification on this bytecode before running it to prevent the program from performing unsafe operations such as branching to incorrect locations, which may contain data rather than instructions. It also allows the JVM to enforce runtime constraints such as array bounds checking. This means that Java programs are significantly less likely to suffer from memory safety flaws such as buffer overflow than programs written in languages such as C which do not provide such memory safety guarantees. The platform does not allow programs to perform certain potentially unsafe operations such as pointer arithmetic or unchecked type casts. It manages memory allocation and initialization and provides automatic garbage collection which in many cases (but not all) relieves the developer from manual memory management. This contributes to type safety and memory safety. === Security manager === The platform provides a security manager which allows users to run untrusted bytecode in a "sandboxed" environment designed to protect them from malicious or poorly written software by preventing the untrusted code from accessing certain platform features and APIs. For example, untrusted code might be prevented from reading or writing files on the local filesystem, running arbitrary commands with the current user's privileges, accessing communication networks, accessing the internal private state of objects using reflection, or causing the JVM to exit. The security manager also allows Java programs to be cryptographically signed; users can choose to allow code with a valid digital signature from a trusted entity to run with full privileges in circumstances where it would otherwise be untrusted. Users can also set fine-grained access control policies for programs from different sources. For example, a user may decide that only system classes should be fully trusted, that code from certain trusted entities may be allowed to read certain specific files, and that all other code should be fully sandboxed. === Security APIs === The Java Class Library provides a number of APIs related to security, such as standard cryptographic algorithms, authentication, and secure communication protocols. === The sun.misc.Unsafe class === sun.misc.Unsafe is an internal utility class in the Java programming language which is a collection of low-level unsafe operations. While it is not a part of the official Java Class Library, it is called internally by the Java libraries. It resides in an unofficial Java module named jdk.unsupported. Beginning in Java 11, it has been partially migrated to jdk.internal.misc.Unsafe (which resides in module java.base). Its primary feature is to allow direct memory management (similar to C memory management) and memory address manipulation, manipulating objects and fields, thread manipulation, and concurrency primitives. Its declaration is: public final class Unsafe;, and it is a singleton class with a private constructor. It contains the following methods, many of which are declared native (invoking Java Native Interface): static Unsafe getUnsafe(): retrieves the Unsafe instance. It uses sun.reflect.Reflection to do so. int getInt(Object o, long offset): fetches a value (a field or array element) in the object at the given offset. (There are corresponding getBoolean(), getByte(), getShort(), getChar(), getLong(), getFloat(), and getDouble() methods as well.) void putInt(Object o, long offset, int x): stores a value into an object at the given offset. (There are corresponding putBoolean(), putByte(), putShort(), putChar(), putLong(), putFloat(), and putDouble() methods as well.) Object getObject(Object o, long offset): fetches a reference value from an object at the given offset. void putObject(Object o, long offset, Object x): stores a reference value into an object at the given offset. int getInt(long address): fetches a value at the given address. (There are corresponding getBoolean(), getByte(), getShort(), getChar(), getLong(), getFloat(), and getDouble() methods as well.) void putInt(long address, int x): stores a value into the given address. (There are corresponding putBoolean(), putByte(), putShort(), putChar(), putLong(), putFloat(), and putDouble() methods as well.) long getAddress(long address): fetches a native pointer from a given address. void putAddress(long address, long x): stores a native pointer into a given address. long allocateMemory(long bytes): allocates a block of native memory of the given size (similar to malloc()). long reallocateMemory(long address, long bytes): resizes a block of native memory to the given size (similar to realloc()). void setMemory(Object o, long offset, long bytes, byte value), void setMemory(long address, long bytes, byte value): sets all bytes in a block of memory to a fixed value (similar to memset()). void copyMemory(Object srcBase, long srcOffset, Object destBase, long destOffset, long bytes), void copyMemory(long srcAddress, long destAddress, long bytes): sets all bytes in a given block of memory to a copy of another block (similar to memcpy()). void freeMemory(long address): deallocates a block of native memory obtained from allocateMemory() or reallocateMemory(), similar to free()). long staticFieldOffset(Field f): obtains the location of a given field in the storage allocation of its class. long objectFieldOffset(Field f): obtains the location of a given static field in conjunction with staticFieldBase(). Object staticFieldBase(Field f): obtains the location of a given static field in conjunction with staticFieldOffset(). void ensureClassInitialized(Class c): ensures the given class has been initialized. int arrayBaseOffset(Class arrayClass): obtains the offset of the first element in the storage allocation of a given array class. int arrayIndexScale(Class arrayClass): obtains the scale factor for addressing elements in the storage allocation of a given array class. static int addressSize(): obtains the size (in bytes) of a native pointer. int pageSize(): obtains the size (in bytes) of a native memory page. Class defineClass(String name, byte[] b, int off, int len, ClassLoader loader, ProtectionDomain protectionDomain): signals to the JVM to define a class without security checks. Class defineAnonymousClass(Class hostClass, byte[] data, Object[] cpPatches): signals to the JVM to define a class but do not make it known to the class loader or system directory. Object allocateInstance(Class cls) throws InstantiationException: allocates an instance of a class without running its constructor. void monitorEnter(Object o): locks an object. void monitorExit(Object o): unlocks an object. boolean tryMonitorEnter(Object o): tries to lock an object, returning whether the lock succeeded. void throwException(Throwable ee): throws an exception without telling the verifier. final boolean compareAndSwapInt(Object o, long offset, int expected, int x): updates a variable to x if it is holding expected, returning whether the operation succeeded. (There are corresponding compareAndSwapLong() and compareAndSwapObject() methods as well.) int getIntVolatile(Object o, long offset): volatile version of getInt(). (There are corresponding getBooleanVolatile(), getByteVolatile(), getShortVolatile(), getCharVolatile(), getLongVolatile(), getFloatVolatile(), getDoubleVolatile(), and getObjectVolatile() methods as well.) void putIntVolatile(Object o, long offset, int x): volatile version of putInt(). (There are corresponding putBooleanVolatile(), putByteVolatile(), putShortVolatile(), putCharVolatile(), putLongVolatile(), putFloatVolatile(), putDoubleVolatile(), and putObjectVolatile() methods as well.) void putOrderedInt(Object o, long offset, int x): version of putIntVolatile() not guaranteeing immediate visibility of storage to other threads. (There are corresponding putOrderedLong() and putOrderedObject() methods as well.) void unpark(Object thread): unblocks a thread. void park(boolean isAbsolute, long time): blocks the current thread. int getLoadAverage(double[] loadavg, int nelems): gets the load average in the system run queue assigned to available processors averaged over various periods of time. void invokeCleaner(ByteBuffe
DABUS
DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system. == History in different jurisdictions == === Australia === On 17 September 2019, Thaler filed an application to patent a "Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention," naming DABUS as the inventor. On 21 September 2020, IP Australia found that section 15(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) is inconsistent with an artificial intelligence machine being treated as an inventor, and Thaler's application had lapsed. Thaler sought judicial review, and on 30 July 2021, the Federal Court set aside IP Australia's decision and ordered IP Australia to reconsider the application. On 13 April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside that decision, holding that only a natural person can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), and that such an inventor must be identified for any person to be entitled to a grant of a patent. On 11 November 2022, Thaler was refused special leave to appeal to the High Court. === European Patent Office === On 17 October 2018 and 7 November 2018, Thaler filed two European patent applications with the European Patent Office. The first claimed invention was a "Food Container" and the second was "Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention." On 27 January 2020, the EPO rejected the applications on the grounds that the application listed an AI system named DABUS, and not a human, as the inventor, based on Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). On 21 December 2021, the Board of Appeal of the EPO dismissed Thaler's appeal from the EPO's primary decision. The Board of Appeal confirmed that "under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity. This is not merely an assumption on which the EPC was drafted. It is the ordinary meaning of the term inventor." === United Kingdom === Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal. Thaler appealed against the hearing officer's decision to the Patents Court (a specialist court within the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales that determines patent disputes). On 21 September 2020, Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the decision of the hearing officer. On 21 September 2021, Thaler's further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by Arnold LJ and Laing LJ (Birss LJ dissenting). On 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by Thaler. In its judgment, the court held that an "inventor" under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. === United States === The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application. Thaler first fought this result by filing a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law; unsupported by substantial evidence, and in excess of Defendants’ statutory authority." A month later on August 19, 2019, Thaler filed a petition with the USPTO as allowed in 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 stating that DABUS should be the inventor. The judge and Thaler agreed in this case that Thaler himself is unable to receive the patent on behalf of DABUS. In their August 5, 2022, Thaler decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that only a natural person could be an inventor, which means that the AI that invents any other type of invention is not addressed by the "who" mentioned in the legislation. === New Zealand === On January 31, 2022, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) decided that a patent application (776029) filed by Stephen Thaler was void, on the basis that no inventor was identified on the patent application. IPONZ determined that DABUS could not be "an actual devisor of the invention" as required by the Patents Act 2013, and that this must be a natural person as held by the previous patent offices above. The High Court of New Zealand confirmed the decision in 2023. === South Africa === On 24 June 2021, the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) accepted Dr Thaler's Patent Cooperation Treaty, for a patent in respect of inventions generated by DABUS. In July 2021, the CIPC released a notice of issuance for the patent. It is the first patent granted for an AI invention. === Switzerland === On June 26, 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors in patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), which requires that only natural persons can be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. The case concerned a patent application, which sought to designate DABUS as the sole inventor of a food container designed with a fractal geometry to enhance heat distribution. The IPI had rejected the application, arguing that both the absence of a human inventor and the attribution of inventorship to an AI system were inadmissible. While the court dismissed Thaler's main request, it accepted a subsidiary request: if a human applicant recognizes and files a patent based on an AI-generated invention, that person may be considered the inventor. As a result, the application may proceed with Thaler listed as the inventor. The decision (B-2532/2024) can still be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.