Argumentation theory is the interdisciplinary study of how conclusions can be supported or undermined by premises through logical reasoning. With historical origins in logic, dialectic, and rhetoric, argumentation theory includes the arts and sciences of civil debate, dialogue, conversation, and persuasion. It studies rules of inference, logic, and procedural rules in both artificial and real-world settings. Argumentation includes various forms of dialogue such as deliberation and negotiation which are concerned with collaborative decision-making procedures. It also encompasses eristic dialogue, the branch of social debate in which victory over an opponent is the primary goal, and didactic dialogue used for teaching. This discipline also studies the means by which people can express and rationally resolve or at least manage their disagreements. Argumentation is a daily occurrence, such as in public debate, science, and law. For example in law, in courts by the judge, the parties and the prosecutor, in presenting and testing the validity of evidences. Also, argumentation scholars study the post hoc rationalizations by which organizational actors try to justify decisions they have made irrationally. Argumentation is one of four rhetorical modes (also known as modes of discourse), along with exposition, description, and narration. == Key components of argumentation == Some key components of argumentation are: Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue. Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived. Establishing the "burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why their position merits acceptance. For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for their position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked. In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent's argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for their argument. For example, consider the following exchange, illustrating the No true Scotsman fallacy: Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." Reply: "But my friend Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge." Rebuttal: "Well perhaps, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge." In this dialogue, the proposer first offers a premise, the premise is challenged by the interlocutor, and so the proposer offers a modification of the premise, which is designed only to evade the challenge provided. == Internal structure of arguments == Typically an argument has an internal structure, comprising the following: a set of assumptions or premises, a method of reasoning or deduction, and a conclusion or point. An argument has one or more premises and one conclusion. Often classical logic is used as the method of reasoning so that the conclusion follows logically from the assumptions or support. One challenge is that if the set of assumptions is inconsistent then anything can follow logically from inconsistency. Therefore, it is common to insist that the set of assumptions be consistent. It is also good practice to require the set of assumptions to be the minimal set, with respect to set inclusion, necessary to infer the consequent. Such arguments are called MINCON arguments, short for minimal consistent. Such argumentation has been applied to the fields of law and medicine. A non-classical approach to argumentation investigates abstract arguments, where 'argument' is considered a primitive term, so no internal structure of arguments is taken into account. == Types of dialogue == In its most common form, argumentation involves an individual and an interlocutor or opponent engaged in dialogue, each contending differing positions and trying to persuade each other, but there are various types of dialogue: Persuasion dialogue aims to resolve conflicting points of view of different positions. Negotiation aims to resolve conflicts of interests by cooperation and dealmaking. Inquiry aims to resolve general ignorance by the growth of knowledge. Deliberation aims to resolve a need to take action by reaching a decision. Information seeking aims to reduce one party's ignorance by requesting information from another party that is in a position to know something. Eristic aims to resolve a situation of antagonism through verbal fighting. == Argumentation and the grounds of knowledge == Argumentation theory had its origins in foundationalism, a theory of knowledge (epistemology) in the field of philosophy. It sought to find the grounds for claims in the forms (logic) and materials (factual laws) of a universal system of knowledge. The dialectical method was made famous by Plato and his use of Socrates critically questioning various characters and historical figures. But argument scholars gradually rejected Aristotle's systematic philosophy and the idealism in Plato and Kant. They questioned and ultimately discarded the idea that argument premises take their soundness from formal philosophical systems. The field thus broadened. One of the original contributors to this trend was the philosopher Chaïm Perelman, who together with Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca introduced the French term la nouvelle rhetorique in 1958 to describe an approach to argument which is not reduced to application of formal rules of inference. Perelman's view of argumentation is much closer to a juridical one, in which rules for presenting evidence and rebuttals play an important role. Karl R. Wallace's seminal essay, "The Substance of Rhetoric: Good Reasons" in the Quarterly Journal of Speech (1963) 44, led many scholars to study "marketplace argumentation" – the ordinary arguments of ordinary people. The seminal essay on marketplace argumentation is Ray Lynn Anderson's and C. David Mortensen's "Logic and Marketplace Argumentation" Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 143–150. This line of thinking led to a natural alliance with late developments in the sociology of knowledge. Some scholars drew connections with recent developments in philosophy, namely the pragmatism of John Dewey and Richard Rorty. Rorty has called this shift in emphasis "the linguistic turn". In this new hybrid approach argumentation is used with or without empirical evidence to establish convincing conclusions about issues which are moral, scientific, epistemic, or of a nature in which science alone cannot answer. Out of pragmatism and many intellectual developments in the humanities and social sciences, "non-philosophical" argumentation theories grew which located the formal and material grounds of arguments in particular intellectual fields. These theories include informal logic, social epistemology, ethnomethodology, speech acts, the sociology of knowledge, the sociology of science, and social psychology. These new theories are not non-logical or anti-logical. They find logical coherence in most communities of discourse. These theories are thus often labeled "sociological" in that they focus on the social grounds of knowledge. == Kinds of argumentation == === Conversational argumentation === The study of naturally occurring conversation arose from the field of sociolinguistics. It is usually called conversation analysis (CA). Inspired by ethnomethodology, it was developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s principally by the sociologist Harvey Sacks and, among others, his close associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Sacks died early in his career, but his work was championed by others in his field, and CA has now become an established force in sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech-communication and psychology. It is particularly influential in interactional sociolinguistics, discourse analysis and discursive psychology, as well as being a coherent discipline in its own right. Recently CA techniques of sequential analysis have been employed by phoneticians to explore the fine phonetic details of speech. Empirical studies and theoretical formulations by Sally Jackson and Scott Jacobs, and several generations of their students, have described argumentation as a form of managing conversational disagreement within communication contexts and systems that naturally prefer agreement. === Mathematical argumentation === The basis of mathematical truth has been the subject of long debate. Frege in particular sought to demonstrate (see Gottlob Frege, The Foundations of Arithmetic, 1884, and Begriffsschrift, 1879) that arithmetical truths can be derived from purely logical axioms and therefore are, in th
Jeremy Renner Official
Jeremy Renner Official (or Jeremy Renner on the Google Play Store) was a mobile app created by American actor Jeremy Renner. He created the app in March 2017 to hear the input and comments of his fans. The app was shut down in September 2019 in part due to the frequent bullying and trolling that the platform had experienced. The app featured optional microtransactions, with some ranging up to roughly US$400 despite the app itself being free. Upon shutting down the app, Renner issued a mass-refund for the collectible "stars" in the app for purchases made within the last ninety days, from the day the announcement was posted. He then posted an apology to the app itself, and the app was deleted from both the Google Play Store and the App Store shortly after. == Usage == Upon downloading the app, the user was faced with a video of Renner speaking about his fans and superfans, regular giveaways, and real-life updates. While the app was active, Renner posted regular questions and comments for fans. Renner occasionally livestreamed about his work and day-to-day life. The community developed to include memes, selfies, and a "Happy Rennsday" event on Wednesdays. == History == === 2017–2019 === The app launched in March 2017 with a promotional contest. Renner's fans were encouraged to download the app and create comments about being Renner's biggest fan; Renner would then choose a winner and transport the winner and a guest to have lunch with him at the Calgary Expo. In the first few months Renner teased behind-the-scenes of projects he was working on, which he now sporadically does on Instagram. The app was similarly designed to Instagram as well, with a near identically styled layout. Around midway through 2019, a hoax account of Renner was made to mock the celebrity, joking about masturbating to porn and defending another hoax account of Casey Anthony. FastCompany wrote extensively about Renner's app in April 2019, calling it "a surprising new kind of social media". The Ringer stated "Jeremy Renner's Jeremy Renner app is the Jeremy Renner of apps." === After deletion (2019–2020) === After the shutdown of the app, a comedy-based pseudo-app with modular endings was released, called "The Jeremy Renner App Experience", in which the player plays as Jeremy Renner on the day of the Jeremy Renner Official app's shutdown. The app details several different choices on how Renner handles the situation. A six-part podcast was also created to mock the app's deletion, called The Renner Files, featuring Carolyn Goldfarb and Sarah Ramos. == Controversies == === Marketing === One of the main controversies of Renner's app was its marketing. The app's developers, Escapex, specialized in and grew famous for making similar monetized apps for celebrities. The marketing campaign was based on direct contact with Renner, whose chances were increased with regular payments for "stars", although very few encounters seemed to happen with Renner himself. The multiple problems with the app led the CEO of Escapex, Sephi Shapira, to call the app a "freak situation", and added "Am I concerned about this? Not more than I'm concerned about 50 other things I'm dealing with as a startup company." Along with the marketing failures, the app was seen as misrepresenting itself as seemingly erotic with some advertisements featuring Renner suggestively staring at the camera, despite the actual app being initially considered safe for children. === Harassment === After its release in 2017, the app was met with waves of harassment and bullying by many users on the app, most frequently by using impersonation — referenced in Renner's apology/deletion notice. Some death threats were made across the app by fraud accounts pretending to be several controversial celebrities, including O. J. Simpson and Casey Anthony. As early as October 2017, there were claims of censorship, bullying, and "contest-rigging". In September 2019, comedian Stefan Heck publicized his discovery of the fact that replies through the app appeared as if they were sent by Renner himself in push notifications. After several users abused this feature, Renner asked Escapex to shut down the app.
Symbolic artificial intelligence
In artificial intelligence, symbolic artificial intelligence (also known as classical artificial intelligence or logic-based artificial intelligence) is the term for the collection of all methods in artificial intelligence research that are based on high-level symbolic (human-readable) representations of problems, logic, and search. Symbolic AI used tools such as logic programming, production rules, semantic nets and frames, and it developed applications such as knowledge-based systems (in particular, expert systems), symbolic mathematics, automated theorem provers, ontologies, the semantic web, and automated planning and scheduling systems. The Symbolic AI paradigm led to important ideas in search, symbolic programming languages, agents, multi-agent systems, the semantic web, and the strengths and limitations of formal knowledge and reasoning systems. Symbolic AI was the dominant paradigm of AI research from the mid-1950s until the mid-1990s. Researchers in the 1960s and the 1970s were convinced that symbolic approaches would eventually succeed in creating a machine with artificial general intelligence and considered this the ultimate goal of their field. An early boom, with early successes such as the Logic Theorist and Samuel's Checkers Playing Program, led to unrealistic expectations and promises and was followed by the first AI Winter as funding dried up. A second boom (1969–1986) occurred with the rise of expert systems, their promise of capturing corporate expertise, and an enthusiastic corporate embrace. That boom, and some early successes, e.g., with XCON at DEC, was followed again by later disappointment. Problems with difficulties in knowledge acquisition, maintaining large knowledge bases, and brittleness in handling out-of-domain problems arose. Another, second, AI Winter (1988–2011) followed. Subsequently, AI researchers focused on addressing underlying problems in handling uncertainty and in knowledge acquisition. Uncertainty was addressed with formal methods such as hidden Markov models, Bayesian reasoning, and statistical relational learning. Symbolic machine learning addressed the knowledge acquisition problem with contributions including Version Space, Valiant's PAC learning, Quinlan's ID3 decision-tree learning, case-based learning, and inductive logic programming to learn relations. Neural networks, a subsymbolic approach, had been pursued from early days and reemerged strongly in 2012. Early examples are Rosenblatt's perceptron learning work, the backpropagation work of Rumelhart, Hinton and Williams, and work in convolutional neural networks by LeCun et al. in 1989. However, neural networks were not viewed as successful until about 2012: "Until Big Data became commonplace, the general consensus in the Al community was that the so-called neural-network approach was hopeless. Systems just didn't work that well, compared to other methods. ... A revolution came in 2012, when a number of people, including a team of researchers working with Hinton, worked out a way to use the power of GPUs to enormously increase the power of neural networks." Over the next several years, deep learning had spectacular success in handling vision, speech recognition, speech synthesis, image generation, and machine translation, though symbolic approaches continue to be useful in a few domains such as computer algebra systems and proof assistants. == History == A short history of symbolic AI to the present day follows below. Time periods and titles are drawn from Henry Kautz's 2020 AAAI Robert S. Engelmore Memorial Lecture and the longer Wikipedia article on the History of AI, with dates and titles differing slightly for increased clarity. === The first AI summer: irrational exuberance, 1948–1966 === Success at early attempts in AI occurred in three main areas: artificial neural networks, knowledge representation, and heuristic search, contributing to high expectations. This section summarizes Kautz's reprise of early AI history. ==== Approaches inspired by human or animal cognition or behavior ==== Cybernetic approaches attempted to replicate the feedback loops between animals and their environments. A robotic turtle, with sensors, motors for driving and steering, and seven vacuum tubes for control, based on a preprogrammed neural net, was built as early as 1948. This work can be seen as an early precursor to later work in neural networks, reinforcement learning, and situated robotics. An important early symbolic AI program was the Logic theorist, written by Allen Newell, Herbert Simon and Cliff Shaw in 1955–56, as it was able to prove 38 elementary theorems from Whitehead and Russell's Principia Mathematica. Newell, Simon, and Shaw later generalized this work to create a domain-independent problem solver, GPS (General Problem Solver). GPS solved problems represented with formal operators via state-space search using means-ends analysis. During the 1960s, symbolic approaches achieved great success at simulating intelligent behavior in structured environments such as game-playing, symbolic mathematics, and theorem-proving. AI research was concentrated in four institutions in the 1960s: Carnegie Mellon University, Stanford, MIT and (later) University of Edinburgh. Each one developed its own style of research. Earlier approaches based on cybernetics or artificial neural networks were abandoned or pushed into the background. Herbert Simon and Allen Newell studied human problem-solving skills and attempted to formalize them, and their work laid the foundations of the field of artificial intelligence, as well as cognitive science, operations research and management science. Their research team used the results of psychological experiments to develop programs that simulated the techniques that people used to solve problems. This tradition, centered at Carnegie Mellon University would eventually culminate in the development of the Soar architecture in the middle 1980s. ==== Heuristic search ==== In addition to the highly specialized domain-specific kinds of knowledge that we will see later used in expert systems, early symbolic AI researchers discovered another more general application of knowledge. These were called heuristics, rules of thumb that guide a search in promising directions: "How can non-enumerative search be practical when the underlying problem is exponentially hard? The approach advocated by Simon and Newell is to employ heuristics: fast algorithms that may fail on some inputs or output suboptimal solutions." Another important advance was to find a way to apply these heuristics that guarantees a solution will be found, if there is one, not withstanding the occasional fallibility of heuristics: "The A algorithm provided a general frame for complete and optimal heuristically guided search. A is used as a subroutine within practically every AI algorithm today but is still no magic bullet; its guarantee of completeness is bought at the cost of worst-case exponential time. ==== Early work on knowledge representation and reasoning ==== Early work covered both applications of formal reasoning emphasizing first-order logic, along with attempts to handle common-sense reasoning in a less formal manner. ===== Modeling formal reasoning with logic: the "neats" ===== Unlike Simon and Newell, John McCarthy felt that machines did not need to simulate the exact mechanisms of human thought, but could instead try to find the essence of abstract reasoning and problem-solving with logic, regardless of whether people used the same algorithms. His laboratory at Stanford (SAIL) focused on using formal logic to solve a wide variety of problems, including knowledge representation, planning and learning. Logic was also the focus of the work at the University of Edinburgh and elsewhere in Europe which led to the development of the programming language Prolog and the science of logic programming. ===== Modeling implicit common-sense knowledge with frames and scripts: the "scruffies" ===== Researchers at MIT (such as Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert) found that solving difficult problems in vision and natural language processing required ad hoc solutions—they argued that no simple and general principle (like logic) would capture all the aspects of intelligent behavior. Roger Schank described their "anti-logic" approaches as "scruffy" (as opposed to the "neat" paradigms at CMU and Stanford). Commonsense knowledge bases (such as Doug Lenat's Cyc) are an example of "scruffy" AI, since they must be built by hand, one complicated concept at a time. === The first AI winter: crushed dreams, 1967–1977 === The first AI winter was a shock: During the first AI summer, many people thought that machine intelligence could be achieved in just a few years. The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launched programs to support AI research to use AI to solve problems of national security; in particular, to automate the translation of Russian to English for inte
Slopaganda
Slopaganda is a portmanteau of "AI slop" and "propaganda", referring to AI-generated content designed to manipulate beliefs, emotions, and political decision-making at scale. The term is credited to Michał Klincewicz, an assistant professor in the Department of Computational Cognitive Science at Tilburg University, in 2025. == Definition == Slopaganda is distinguished from traditional propaganda by three features: scale, scope, and speed. Generative AI makes it possible to produce large volumes of content quickly and at low cost, allows for highly personalised and targeted messaging to specific sub-audiences, and leverages the hyper-connectivity of social networks to accelerate dissemination beyond what conventional media could achieve. Unlike traditional propaganda, which delivers a uniform message to all recipients, slopaganda can be micro-targeted — tailored to individuals based on estimated prior beliefs to reinforce political biases or emotional associations. The authors note that it need not aim at literal deception: much slopaganda is expressive rather than truth-apt, designed to create emotional associations rather than false factual beliefs. == Relation to AI slop == Slopaganda is a subset of AI slop — low-quality, mass-produced AI-generated content — distinguished by intent. Where AI slop may be produced indifferently for commercial or engagement-farming purposes, slopaganda is deployed with a deliberate political or ideological goal. == Notable examples == Examples discussed by the term's originators include Donald Trump's prolific use of AI in Truth Social posts and Iranian Lego-themed music videos. AI-generated videos posted by the White House mixing real military footage with clips from films and video games; and deepfake audio imitating political candidates during the 2024 US presidential campaign have also been given the label slopaganda.
Perusall
Perusall is a social web annotation tool intended for use by students at schools and universities. It allows users to annotate the margins of a text in a virtual group setting that is similar to social media—with upvoting, emojis, chat functionality, and notification. It also includes automatic AI grading. == History == Perusall began as a research project at Harvard University. It later became an educational product for students and teachers. As of 2024, Perusall states more than 5 million students have used the tool at over 5,000 educational institutions in 112 countries." == Functionality == Perusall integrates with learning management systems such as Moodle, Canvas and Blackboard to aid with collaborative annotation. The tool supports annotation of a range of media including text, images, equations, videos, PDFs and snapshots of webpages.
Time-compressed speech
Time-compressed speech refers to an audio recording of verbal text in which the text is presented in a much shorter time interval than it would through normally-paced real time speech. The basic purpose is to make recorded speech contain more words in a given time, yet still be understandable. For example: a paragraph that might normally be expected to take 20 seconds to read, might instead be presented in 15 seconds, which would represent a time-compression of 25% (5 seconds out of 20). The term "time-compressed speech" should not be confused with "speech compression", which controls the volume range of a sound, but does not alter its time envelope. == Methods == While some voice talents are capable of speaking at rates significantly in excess of general norms, the term "time-compressed speech" most usually refers to examples in which the time-reduction has been accomplished through some form of electronic processing of the recorded speech. In general, recorded speech can be electronically time-compressed by: increasing its speed (linear compression); removing silences (selective editing); a combination of the two (non-linear compression). The speed of a recording can be increased, which will cause the material to be presented at a faster rate (and hence in a shorter amount of time), but this has the undesirable side-effect of increasing the frequency of the whole passage, raising the pitch of the voices, which can reduce intelligibility. There are normally silences between words and sentences, and even small silences within certain words, both of which can be reduced or removed ("edited-out") which will also reduce the amount of time occupied by the full speech recording. However, this can also have the effect of removing verbal "punctuation" from the speech, causing words and sentences to run together unnaturally, again reducing intelligibility. Vowels are typically held a minimum of 20 milliseconds, over many cycles of the fundamental pitch. DSP systems can detect the beginning and end of each cycle and then skip over some fraction of those cycles, causing the material to be presented at a faster rate, without changing the pitch, maintaining a "normal" tone of voice. The current preferred method of time-compression is called "non-linear compression", which employs a combination of selectively removing silences; speeding up the speech to make the reduced silences sound normally-proportioned to the text; and finally applying various data algorithms to bring the speech back down to the proper pitch. This produces a more acceptable result than either of the two earlier techniques; however, if unrestrained, removing the silences and increasing the speed can make a selection of speech sound more insistent, possibly to the point of unpleasantness. == Applications == === Advertising === Time-compressed speech is frequently used in television and radio advertising. The advantage of time-compressed speech is that the same number of words can be compressed into a smaller amount of time, reducing advertising costs, and/or allowing more information to be included in a given radio or TV advertisement. It is usually most noticeable in the information-dense caveats and disclaimers presented (usually by legal requirement) at the end of commercials—the aural equivalent of the "fine print" in a printed contract. This practice, however, is not new: before electronic methods were developed, spokespeople who could talk extremely quickly and still be understood were widely used as voice talents for radio and TV advertisements, and especially for recording such disclaimers. === Education === Time-compressed speech has educational applications such as increasing the information density of trainings, and as a study aid. A number of studies have demonstrated that the average person is capable of relatively easily comprehending speech delivered at higher-than-normal rates, with the peak occurring at around 25% compression (that is, 25% faster than normal); this facility has been demonstrated in several languages. Conversational speech (in English) takes place at a rate of around 150 wpm (words per minute), but the average person is able to comprehend speech presented at rates of up to 200-250 wpm without undue difficulty. Blind and severely visually impaired subjects scored similar comprehension levels at even higher rates, up to 300-350 wpm. Blind people have been found to use time-compressed speech extensively, for example, when reviewing recorded lectures from high school and college classes, or professional trainings. Comprehension rates in older blind subjects have been found to be as good, or in some cases better than those found in younger sighted subjects. Other studies have determined that the ability to comprehend highly time-compressed speech tends to fall off with increased age, and is also reduced when the language of the time-compressed speech is not the listener's native language. Non-native speakers can, however, improve their comprehension level of time-compressed speech with multiday training. === Voice Mail === Voice mail systems have employed time-compressed speech since as far back as the 1970s. In this application, the technology enables the rapid review of messages in high-traffic systems, by a relatively small number of people. === Streaming Multimedia === Time-compressed speech has been explored as one of a variety of interrelated factors which may be manipulated to increase the efficiency of streaming multimedia presentations, by significantly reducing the latency times involved in the transfer of large digitally encoded media files.
Empowerment (artificial intelligence)
Empowerment in the field of artificial intelligence formalises and quantifies (via information theory) the potential an agent perceives that it has to influence its environment. An agent which follows an empowerment maximising policy, acts to maximise future options (typically up to some limited horizon). Empowerment can be used as a (pseudo) utility function that depends only on information gathered from the local environment to guide action, rather than seeking an externally imposed goal, thus is a form of intrinsic motivation. The empowerment formalism depends on a probabilistic model commonly used in artificial intelligence. An autonomous agent operates in the world by taking in sensory information and acting to change its state, or that of the environment, in a cycle of perceiving and acting known as the perception-action loop. Agent state and actions are modelled by random variables ( S : s ∈ S , A : a ∈ A {\displaystyle S:s\in {\mathcal {S}},A:a\in {\mathcal {A}}} ) and time ( t {\displaystyle t} ). The choice of action depends on the current state, and the future state depends on the choice of action, thus the perception-action loop unrolled in time forms a causal bayesian network. == Definition == Empowerment ( E {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}} ) is defined as the channel capacity ( C {\displaystyle C} ) of the actuation channel of the agent, and is formalised as the maximal possible information flow between the actions of the agent and the effect of those actions some time later. Empowerment can be thought of as the future potential of the agent to affect its environment, as measured by its sensors. E := C ( A t ⟶ S t + 1 ) ≡ max p ( a t ) I ( A t ; S t + 1 ) {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}:=C(A_{t}\longrightarrow S_{t+1})\equiv \max _{p(a_{t})}I(A_{t};S_{t+1})} In a discrete time model, Empowerment can be computed for a given number of cycles into the future, which is referred to in the literature as 'n-step' empowerment. E ( A t n ⟶ S t + n ) = max p ( a t , . . . , a t + n − 1 ) I ( A t , . . . , A t + n − 1 ; S t + n ) {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}(A_{t}^{n}\longrightarrow S_{t+n})=\max _{p(a_{t},...,a_{t+n-1})}I(A_{t},...,A_{t+n-1};S_{t+n})} The unit of empowerment depends on the logarithm base. Base 2 is commonly used in which case the unit is bits. === Contextual Empowerment === In general the choice of action (action distribution) that maximises empowerment varies from state to state. Knowing the empowerment of an agent in a specific state is useful, for example to construct an empowerment maximising policy. State-specific empowerment can be found using the more general formalism for 'contextual empowerment'. C {\displaystyle C} is a random variable describing the context (e.g. state). E ( A t n ⟶ S t + n ∣ C ) = ∑ c ∈ C p ( c ) E ( A t n ⟶ S t + n ∣ C = c ) {\displaystyle {\mathfrak {E}}(A_{t}^{n}\longrightarrow S_{t+n}{\mid }C)=\sum _{c{\in }C}p(c){\mathfrak {E}}(A_{t}^{n}\longrightarrow S_{t+n}{\mid }C=c)} == Application == Empowerment maximisation can be used as a pseudo-utility function to enable agents to exhibit intelligent behaviour without requiring the definition of external goals, for example balancing a pole in a cart-pole balancing scenario where no indication of the task is provided to the agent. Empowerment has been applied in studies of collective behaviour and in continuous domains. As is the case with Bayesian methods in general, computation of empowerment becomes computationally expensive as the number of actions and time horizon extends, but approaches to improve efficiency have led to usage in real-time control. Empowerment has been used for intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning agents playing video games, and in the control of underwater vehicles.