In databases and transaction processing, two-phase locking (2PL) is a pessimistic concurrency control method that guarantees conflict-serializability. It is also the name of the resulting set of database transaction schedules (histories). The protocol uses locks, applied by a transaction to data, which may block (interpreted as signals to stop) other transactions from accessing the same data during the transaction's life. By the 2PL protocol, locks are applied and removed in two phases: Expanding phase: locks are acquired and no locks are released. Shrinking phase: locks are released and no locks are acquired. Two types of locks are used by the basic protocol: Shared and Exclusive locks. Refinements of the basic protocol may use more lock types. Using locks that block processes, 2PL, S2PL, and SS2PL may be subject to deadlocks that result from the mutual blocking of two or more transactions. == Read and write locks == Locks are used to guarantee serializability. A transaction is holding a lock on an object if that transaction has acquired a lock on that object which has not yet been released. For 2PL, the only used data-access locks are read-locks (shared locks) and write-locks (exclusive locks). Below are the rules for read-locks and write-locks: A transaction is allowed to read an object if and only if it is holding a read-lock or write-lock on that object. A transaction is allowed to write an object if and only if it is holding a write-lock on that object. A schedule (i.e., a set of transactions) is allowed to hold multiple locks on the same object simultaneously if and only if none of those locks are write-locks. If a disallowed lock attempts on being held simultaneously, it will be blocked. == Variants == Note that all conflict serializable schedules are also view serializable (but not vice-versa). === Two-phase locking === According to the two-phase locking protocol, each transaction handles its locks in two distinct, consecutive phases during the transaction's execution: Expanding phase (aka Growing phase): locks are acquired and no locks are released (the number of locks can only increase). Shrinking phase (aka Contracting phase): locks are released and no locks are acquired. The two phase locking rules can be summarized as: each transaction must never acquire a lock after it has released a lock. The serializability property is guaranteed for a schedule with transactions that obey this rule. Typically, without explicit knowledge in a transaction on end of phase 1, the rule is safely determined only when a transaction has completed processing and requested commit. In this case, all the locks can be released at once (phase 2). === Conservative two-phase locking === Conservative two-phase locking (C2PL) differs from 2PL in that transactions obtain all the locks they need before the actual execution begins. This is to ensure that a transaction that already holds some locks will not block waiting for other locks. C2PL prevents deadlocks. In cases of heavy lock contention, C2PL reduces the time locks are held on average, relative to 2PL and Strict 2PL, because transactions that hold locks are never blocked. In light lock contention, C2PL holds more locks than is necessary, because it is difficult to predict which locks will be needed in the future, thus leading to higher overhead. A C2PL transaction will not obtain any locks if it cannot obtain all the locks it needs in its initial request. Furthermore, each transaction needs to declare its read and write set (the data items that will be read/written), which is not always possible. Because of these limitations, C2PL is not used very frequently. === Strict two-phase locking === To comply with the strict two-phase locking (S2PL) protocol, a transaction needs to comply with 2PL, and release its write (exclusive) locks only after the transaction has ended (i.e., either committed or aborted). On the other hand, read (shared) locks are released regularly during the shrinking phase. Unlike 2PL, S2PL provides strictness (a special case of cascade-less recoverability). This protocol is not appropriate in B-trees because it causes Bottleneck (while B-trees always starts searching from the parent root). === Strong strict two-phase locking === or Rigorousness, or Rigorous scheduling, or Rigorous two-phase locking To comply with strong strict two-phase locking (SS2PL), a transaction's read and write locks are released only after that transaction has ended (i.e., either committed or aborted). A transaction obeying SS2PL has only a phase 1 and lacks a phase 2 until the transaction has completed. Every SS2PL schedule is also an S2PL schedule, but not vice versa.
Vegas Pro
Vegas Pro (formerly known as Sony Vegas) is a professional video editing software package for non-linear editing (NLE), designed to run on the Microsoft Windows operating system. The first release of Vegas Beta was on June 11, 1999. Vegas was originally developed as a non-linear audio editing application. Version 2.0 would split the program into audio and video editing variants, with the former being dropped by version 4.0, making the video offering the only variant available to consumers. Vegas Pro features real-time multi-track video and audio editing on unlimited tracks, resolution-independent video sequencing, complex effects, compositing tools, 24-bit/192 kHz audio support, VST and DirectX plug-in effect support, and Dolby Digital surround sound mixing. The software was originally published by Sonic Foundry until May 2003, when Sony purchased Sonic Foundry and formed Sony Creative Software. On May 24, 2016, Sony announced that Vegas was sold to MAGIX, which formed VEGAS Creative Software, to continue support and development of the software. As of the end of March 2026, it was publicly announced that Boris FX had taken ownership of Vegas Pro. Each release of Vegas is sold standalone; however, upgrade discounts are sometimes provided. == Features == Vegas does not require any specialized hardware to run properly, allowing it to operate on any Windows computer that meets the system requirements. == History == Vegas 1.0 was released after a brief public beta by Sonic Foundry on July 23, 1999 at the NAMM Show in Nashville, Tennessee as an audio-only tool with a particular focus on re-scaling and resampling audio. It supported formats like DivX and Real Networks RealSystem G2 file formats. Martin Walker from Sound on Sound described working in Vegas 1.0 as a "very pleasurable experience, especially since so many functions are highly intuitive" though also criticizing some features as hard to figure out due to the lack of a central help file. Later, on June 12, 2000, Vegas Video and Audio 2.0 (also referred to as just Vegas 2.0) was released, with its beta releasing earlier that year on April 10. This was the first version of Vegas to include video-editing tools and was also the first to have a low-cost "LE" version alongside the regular release. The LE releases would continue through version 3.0 of Vegas but would be discontinued by the release of Vegas 4.0. Vegas 3.0 was released the next year on December 3, and added new video effects, features for ease-of-use with DV, and support for editing Windows Media files. Vegas 4.0 was released on 6 February 2003 and added application scripting, advanced color correction, 5.1 surround sound mixing, and Steinberg ASIO support. This was the last release under the Sonic Foundry name after it sold much of its software suite, including Sound Forge and Acid Pro, to Sony Pictures Digital for $18 million later in 2003. Under Sony's ownership, Vegas 5.0 was released on April 19, 2004, bringing 3D track motion, compositing, reversing, envelope automation, etc. 7.0 also added an improved video preview, enhanced layout management, improved snapping, and more customization. With the release of 8.0, Sony opted to go back to the original "Vegas Pro" branding that the first version released with. It added the ability to burn Blu-ray and DVD optical media, support for 32-bit floating point audio, support for tempo-based audio effects, and more. It also moved the timeline to the bottom of the window by default with the option of moving it back to the top if the user wished to. Sony was also experimenting with 64-bit at this time and ported Vegas Pro 8.0 to 64-bit systems under the name "Vegas Pro 8.1". Vegas Pro 9.0 added support for 4K resolution and pro camcorder formats like Red and XDCAM EX. In 2009, Sony Creative Software purchased the Velvetmatter Radiance suite of video FX plug-ins which were included in Sony Vegas Pro 9.0. As a result, they were no longer available as a separate product from Velvetmatter. Vegas Pro 10 was released in 2010 with stereoscopic 3D editing, image stabilization, OpenFX plugin support, real-time audio event effects, and a few UI changes. This was the last release to include support for Windows XP. Vegas Pro 11 was released the next year on 17 October, with GPGPU video acceleration, enhanced text tools, enhanced stereoscopic/3D features, RAW photo support, and new event synchronization mechanisms. In addition, Vegas Pro 11 comes pre-loaded with "NewBlue" Titler Pro, a 2D and 3D titling plug-in. Vegas Pro 12 would add two new configurations: Vegas Pro 12 Edit, for "Professional Video and Audio Production"; and Vegas Pro 12 Suite, for "Professional Editing, Disc Authoring, and Visual Effects Design". Vegas Pro 13 would be the last version released with Sony branding after the acquisition of much of Sony Creative Software's library by Magix. After they acquired Vegas, Magix released version 14 on September 20, 2016. It featured advanced 4K upscaling as well as many bug fixes, a higher video velocity limit, RED camera support, and a variety of other features. This was also the last version to have the light theme enabled by default. Released on August 28, 2017, Vegas Pro 15 features major UI changes that claim to bring usability improvements and customization. It was the first version of VEGAS Pro to have a dark theme; it also allows more efficient editing speeds, including adding new shortcuts to speed the video editing process. Vegas Pro 15 includes support for Intel Quick Sync Video (QSV) and other technologies, as well as various other features. It introduced a new VEGAS Pro icon as a V. Vegas Pro 16 has some new features including file backup, motion tracking, improved video stabilization, 360° editing and HDR support. Magix has continued to improve Vegas through version 21 with support for reading Matroska files, a more detailed render dialogue, live streaming, VST3 support, a VST 32-bit bridge, and a selective Paste Event Attributes menu. Magix would later release a subscription model for using Vegas named "Vegas Pro 365" on January 17, 2018, although the perpetual licence is still an option for customers. This version includes cloud-based speech synthesis among other features not included in the mainline Vegas release. == Version history == Each release of Vegas is sold standalone, however upgrade discounts are sometimes provided. === Vegas Beta === Sonic Foundry introduced a sneak preview version of Vegas Pro on June 11, 1999. It is called a "Multitrack Media Editing System". === Vegas 1.0 === Released on July 23, 1999 at the NAMM Show in Nashville, Tennessee, Vegas was an audio-only tool with a particular focus on rescaling and resampling audio. It supported formats like DivX and Real Networks RealSystem G2 file formats. Version 1.0 is the final Vegas release to include Windows 95 support. === Vegas Video beta (Vegas 2.0 beta) === Released on April 10, 2000, this was the first version of Vegas to include video-editing tools. === Vegas Video (Vegas 2.0) === Released on June 12, 2000. Version 2.0 is the final Vegas Video release to include Windows NT 4.0 support. === Vegas Video 3.0 === Released on December 3, 2001. This release added: New Video Effects – Lens Flare, Light Rays, Film FX, Color Curves, Mirror, Remap, Deform, Convolution, Linear Blur, Black Restore, Levels, Unsharp Mask, Color Grading, and Timecode Burn filter. Batch Capture with Automatic Scene Detection – Captures DV with automatic scene detection, batch capture, tape logging, still image capture and thumbnail previews. Red Book Audio CD Mastering with CD Architect (TM) Technology – Used for burning Red Book audio CD masters directly from the Vegas timeline with ISRC, UPC, and PQ list support. New Sonic Foundry DV Codec – Introduces a DV codec developed by Sonic Foundry that offers artifact-free compositing and DV chromakeying. DV Print-to-Tape from the Timeline – Prints projects to DV cameras and decks from the Vegas timeline. Windows Media (TM) File Editing – Creates and edits Windows Media (TM) files. New MPEG Encoding Tools – Used for producing MPEG-2 files for DVD productions. Dynamic RAM Previewing – Temporary RAM/render-free previews for analysis and tweaking of complex video FX without rendering. VideoCD and Data CD Burning – Burning projects directly to VideoCD for playback on most DVD players or data CDs for playback computers' CD-ROMs. === Vegas 4.0 === Released on February 6, 2003. This release added: Advanced Color Correction Tools Searchable Media Pool Bins Vectorscope, Histogram, Parade and Waveform Monitoring Application Scripting Improved Ripple Editing Motion Blur and Super-Sampling Envelopes 5.1 Surround Mixing Dolby® Digital AC-3 Encoding certified and tested by Dolby Laboratories DirectX® Audio Plug-In Effects Automation ASIO Driver Support Windows Media™ 9 Support, including Surround Encoding DVD Authoring with AC-3 File Import Capabilities Integration with DVD Architect via Chap
Mobile Fortify
Mobile Fortify is a mobile app used by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on their government-issued phones. The app allows agents to take a photo in order to gather biometrics, including contactless fingerprints and faceprints, for the purpose of identifying an individual and their potential immigration status. The app was created by NEC. == History == In June 2025, use of Mobile Fortify by ICE was uncovered through leaked emails and the user manual, reported by 404 Media. The app is internally developed, and details of the parent company and developer were initially unknown. In January 2026, the DHS's 2025 AI Use Case Inventory revealed the vendor as NEC Corporation, an international conglomerate with subsidiaries in Argentina, Australia, China, India and Malaysia. Later that month, several senators demanded transparency around the app and its origins, and that ICE stop using it. A second letter was sent again in November, after hearing no response to the previous letter from ICE. == Technology == Unlike other facial recognition software, Fortify uses federally linked databases. By contrast, Clearview AI uses public social media databases for biometric scanning. Federal databases include DHS's automated biometric identification system (IDENT), containing more than 270 million biometric records, and Customs and Border Protection's Traveler Verification Service. The State Department's visa and passport photo database, the FBI's National Crime Information Center, National Law Enforcement Telecommunications Systems, and CBP's TECS and Seized Assets and Case Tracing System (SEACATS). == Oversight == Several senators urged ICE to stop using the app for fear of infringing on fourth amendment and first amendment rights, and requested details on who developed the app, when it was deployed, whether the app was tested for accuracy, and policies and practices governing its use. In June 2025, they sent an open letter to Todd Lyons, ICE acting director, signed by senators Cory Booker, Chris Van Hollen, Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders, Adam Schiff, Tina Smith, Elizabeth Warren, and Ron Wyden. On November 3, a second letter was sent to the ICE by senators, after not receiving answers to questions from the previous letter deadlined for October 2. == Criticism == Mobile Fortify, and ICE's use of similar biometric identification technologies (such as Mobile Identify, an app similar to Mobile Fortify to be used by local or regional law enforcement to assist in immigration enforcement ) has faced scrutiny from a variety of digital rights organizations, politicians, and news outlets. The criticism is already considered to potentially be a reason why the similar Mobile Identify app was pulled from the Google Play Store. Facial recognition technologies are known to produce false-positives and generally unreliable results, especially on those with darker skin tones. ICE has already previously mistakenly arrested a U.S. citizen under the belief he was illegally in the country, and later stated that he "could be deported based on biometric confirmation of his identity" prior to his release. U.S. representative Bennie Thompson, ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee has previously commented that "ICE officials have told us that an apparent biometric match by Mobile Fortify is a ‘definitive’ determination of a person's status and that an ICE officer may ignore evidence of American citizenship—including a birth certificate—if the app says the person is an alien," and that "Mobile Fortify is a dangerous tool in the hands of ICE, and it puts American citizens at risk of detention and even deportation," On January 19, 2026, 404 Media reported on a case where a woman, identified in court documents as "MJMA", was scanned by Mobile Fortify twice in the same interaction, and two entirely different names were provided by the app. According to the Innovation Law Lab, whose attorneys are representing MJMA, both of the names were incorrect. ICE has stated that they will not allow people to decline to be scanned by Mobile Fortify, and that photos taken, even those of U.S. citizens, will be stored for 15 years, something that has been criticized primarily because ICE has not performed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for Mobile Fortify, the right to decline other forms of biometric verification to the U.S. government is often available under other circumstances, and the 15 year window is viewed as unnecessarily large.
DARPA Prize Competitions
Over the years, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has conducted numerous prize competitions to spur innovation. A prize competition allows DARPA to establish an ambitious goal, opening the door to novel approaches from the public that might otherwise appear too risky for experts in a particular field to pursue. == Statutory authorities == In 1999, Congress provided prize competition authority to DARPA in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106–65), 10 U.S.C. § 4025, formerly 10 U.S.C. §2374a. DARPA also conducts prize competitions under the America COMPETES Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3719. == Recent prize competitions == DARPA Grand Challenge (2004 and 2005) was a prize competition to spur the development of autonomous vehicle technologies. The $1 million prize went unclaimed as no vehicles could complete the challenging desert route from Barstow, CA, to Primm, NV, on March 13, 2004. A year later, on October 8, 2005, the Stanford Racing Team won the $2 million prize during the second competition of the Grand Challenge in the desert Southwest near the California/Nevada state line. DARPA Urban Challenge (2007) required the competitors to build an autonomous vehicle capable of driving in traffic and performing complex maneuvers such as merging, passing, parking, and negotiating intersections. On November 3, 2007, the Carnegie Mellon Team won the $2 million prize, and its vehicle became the first autonomous vehicle that interacted with both manned and unmanned vehicle traffic in an urban environment. DARPA Network Challenge (Red Balloon Challenge) (2009) explored the roles that the Internet and social networking play in solving broad-scope, time-critical problems. On December 5, 2009, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology team won $40,000 by locating the ten moored, eight-foot, red weather balloons at ten places in the United States within seven hours. DARPA Digital Manufacturing Analysis, Correlation and Estimation Challenge (DMACE) (2010) was a three-month contest to showcase the potential of digital manufacturing of advanced materials. The University of California at Santa Barbara team won a $50,000 prize for crushing 180 digitally manufactured (DM) titanium mesh spheres with the most accurate predictive model of the components’ properties. DARPA Shredder Challenge (2011) was to identify and assess potential capabilities and vulnerabilities to sensitive information in the national security community. Participating teams must download the images of the documents shredded into more than 10,000 pieces from the Challenge website, reconstruct the documents, and solve the five puzzles. Of almost 9,000 teams, the San Francisco-based All Your Shreds Are Belong to U.S team won the $50,000 prize. DARPA UAVForge Challenge (2011-2012) aimed to build and test a user-intuitive, backpack-portable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that could quietly fly in and out of critical environments to conduct sustained surveillance for up to three hours. The $100,000 prize was not claimed because none of the 140 teams met the technical matrix. DARPA Cash for Locating & Identifying Quick Response Codes (CLIQR) Quest Challenge (2012) explored the role the Internet and social media played in the timely communication, wide-area team-building, and urgent mobilization required to solve broad scope, time-critical problems. The challenge offered $40,000 to the first individual or team that could locate seven posters appearing in U.S. cities bearing the DARPA logo and a quick response code (QR) within 15 days. No team found and submitted all seven codes. DARPA Fast Adaptable Next-Generation Ground Vehicle (FANG) Challenge (2012-2013) was to use three competitions for the design of an infantry fighting vehicle, culminating in prototypes. In April 2013, DARPA awarded US$1 million to a three-man team during the first competition. DARPA decided not to proceed with the second and third competitions as originally planned and transitioned the technologies to the defense and commercial industry through the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII). DARPA Spectrum Challenge (2013-2014) sought to demonstrate how a software-defined radio can use a given communication channel in the presence of other users and interfering signals. Three teams emerged as the overall winners, winning a total of $150,000 in prizes. DARPA Chikungunya (CHIKV) Challenge (2014-2015) was a health-related effort to develop the most accurate predictions of CHIKV cases for all Western Hemisphere countries and territories between September 2014 and March 2015. On May 12, 2015, DARPA awarded $500,000 in prizes to the 11 winners of the competition during a scientific review DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) (2013-2015) aimed to develop semi-autonomous ground robots that could do "complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments." A South Korean team won the first prize of $2 million, and two U.S. teams won $1 million and $500,000 as second and third winners. DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC) (2014 - 2016) was to “create automatic defensive systems capable of reasoning about flaws, formulating patches and deploying them on a network in real time.” The top three winners were awarded prizes of $2 million, $1 million, and $750,000, respectively. DARPA Spectrum Collaboration Challenge (SC2) (2016-2019) aimed to encourage the development of AI-enabled wireless networks to “ensure that the exponentially growing number of military and civilian wireless devices would have full access to the increasingly crowded electromagnetic spectrum.” A team from the University of Florida won the overall top prize of US$2 million at the final SC2 competition. DARPA Subterranean (SubT) Challenge (2017-2021) was to develop robotic technologies to map, navigate, search and exploit complex underground environments. The first-place winners of the system final competition and of the virtual final competition were awarded $2 million and $750,000, respectively, with multiple prizes awarded to the second and third-place winners. DARPA Launch Challenge (2018-2020) was a $12 million satellite launch challenge to demonstrate responsive and flexible space launch capabilities from the small launch providers and was to culminate in two separate launch competitions where the competitors must launch a satellite to low Earth orbit (LEO) within days of each other at different locations in the United States. The competition ended without a winner. DARPA Forecasting Floats in Turbulence (FFT) Challenge (2021) was to spur technologies that could predict the location of sea drifters or floats within 10 days. DARPA awarded $25,000 for first place, with prizes of $15,000 and $10,000 for second place and third place. DARPA Artificial Intelligence Cyber Challenge (AIxCC) (2023–2025) was a two-year challenge and asks competitors to design novel AI systems to secure critical software code on which Americans rely. The total prize money is $29.5 million. In March 2024, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) partnered with DARPA, contributing an additional $20 million to the competition's prize pool to address software vulnerabilities in medical devices, hospital IT, and biotech equipment. AIxCC collaborates with Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, Linux Foundation, Open Source Security Foundation, Black Hat USA, and DEF CON, all of which provide AIxCC with access to large language models. In August 2024, AIxCC held the semifinal at DEF CON in Las Vegas. DARPA and ARPA-H tested all 42 submissions by running them through various open-source coding projects with deliberately injected vulnerabilities and scored the tools based on their effectiveness in identifying and fixing security flaws. Seven teams, each winning $2 million in the semifinals, competed in the final round of the AIxCC at the August 2025 DEF CON conference. Team Atlanta won first place with a $4 million prize for its cyber reasoning systems, which identified and patched vulnerabilities across 54 million lines of code. DARPA Triage Challenge (2023 – 2026) aims to spur the development of novel physiological features for medical triage, with a total prize money of $7 million. In October 2024, Challenge Event 1 was held in Perry, Georgia, featuring to-scale replicas of disaster sites such as an airplane crash and Hurricane Katrina, and teams competed based on how closely their data aligned with the agency’s official data and how quickly and accurately their autonomous systems could identify individuals most urgently in need of medical care. DARPA concluded the second year of competitions and, in November 2025, named the top performers in systems and data categories, which will advance to the final 2026 competition. The DARPA Lift Challenge (2025-2026) is for participants to design unmanned aerial systems capable of carrying up to four times their own weight, with a minimum payload of 110 pounds. Acco
AI takeover
An AI takeover is a theorized future event, often depicted in fiction, in which autonomous artificial intelligence systems acquire the capability to supersede human decisions. This could occur through economic manipulation, infrastructure control, or direct intervention, leading to de facto governance. Scenarios range from gradual economic dominance, as automation supplants the human workforce, up to a sudden or aggressive global takeover by a robot uprising or other forms of rogue AI. Stories of AI takeovers have been popular throughout science fiction. Commentators argue that recent advancements in the field have heightened concern about such scenarios. In public debate, prominent figures such as Stephen Hawking have advocated research into precautionary measures to ensure future superintelligent machines remain under human control. == Types == === Automation of the economy === The traditional consensus among economists has been that technological progress does not cause long-term unemployment. However, recent innovation in the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence has raised worries that human labor will become obsolete, leaving workers in some sectors without employment. Many small and medium-sized firms may also be forced to close if they cannot afford or license the latest robotic and AI technology, and may need to focus on areas or services that cannot easily be replaced for continued viability in the face of such technology. ==== Technologies that may displace workers ==== While these technologies have replaced some traditional workers, they also create new opportunities. Industries that are most susceptible to AI-driven automation include transportation, retail, and the military. AI military technologies, for example, can reduce risk by enabling remote operation. A study in 2024 highlights AI's ability to perform routine and repetitive tasks poses significant risks of job displacement, especially in sectors like manufacturing and administrative support. Author Dave Bond argues that as AI technologies continue to develop and expand, the relationship between humans and robots will change; they will become closely integrated in several aspects of life. AI will likely displace some workers while creating opportunities for new jobs in other sectors, especially in fields where tasks are repeatable. Researchers from Stanford's Digital Economy Lab reported in 2025 that since the widespread adoption of generative AI in late 2022, early-career workers (ages 22–25) in the most AI-exposed occupations have experienced a 13 percent relative decline in employment—even after controlling for firm-level shocks—while overall employment has continued to grow robustly. The study further finds that job losses are concentrated in roles where AI automates routine tasks, whereas occupations that leverage AI to augment human work have seen stable or increasing employment. ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing uses computers to control the production process. This allows individual processes to exchange information with each other and initiate actions. Although manufacturing can be faster and less error-prone through the integration of computers, the main advantage is the ability to create automated manufacturing processes. Computer-integrated manufacturing is used in automotive, aviation, space, and shipbuilding industries. ==== White-collar machines ==== The 21st century has seen a variety of skilled tasks partially taken over by machines, including translation, legal research, and journalism. Care work, entertainment, and other tasks requiring empathy, previously thought safe from automation, are increasingly performed by robots and AI systems. ==== Autonomous cars ==== An autonomous car is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Many such vehicles are operational and others are being developed, with legislation rapidly expanding to allow their use. Obstacles to widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles have included concerns about the resulting loss of driving-related jobs in the road transport industry, and safety concerns. On March 18, 2018, a pedestrian was struck and killed in Tempe, Arizona by an Uber self-driving car. ==== AI-generated content ==== In the 2020s, automated content became more relevant due to technological advancements in AI models, such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion. In most cases, AI-generated content such as imagery, literature, and music are produced through text prompts. These AI models are sometimes integrated into creative programs. AI-generated art may sample and conglomerate existing creative works, producing results that appear similar to human-made content. Low-quality AI-generated visual artwork can be informally referred to as AI slop. Some artists use a tool called Nightshade that alters images to make them detrimental to the training of text-to-image models if scraped without permission, while still looking normal to humans. AI-generated images are a potential tool for scammers and those looking to gain followers on social media, either to impersonate a famous individual or group or to monetize their audience. The New York Times has sued OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement related to the training and outputs of its AI models. === Eradication === Scientists such as Stephen Hawking are confident that superhuman artificial intelligence is physically possible, stating "there is no physical law precluding particles from being organised in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains". According to Nick Bostrom, a superintelligent machine would not necessarily be motivated by the same emotional desire to collect power that often drives human beings but might rather treat power as a means toward attaining its ultimate goals; taking over the world would both increase its access to resources and help to prevent other agents from stopping the machine's plans. As a simplified example, a paperclip maximizer designed solely to create as many paperclips as possible would want to take over the world so that it can use all of the world's resources to create as many paperclips as possible, and, additionally, prevent humans from shutting it down or using those resources on things other than paperclips. There are debates on how realistic AI takeover scenarios are. According to a 2026 research paper, many of the arguments about existential risks are based on speculative assumptions about how intelligent AI systems could become, how they would behave and what goals they might develop over time. A 2023 Reuters/Ipsos survey showed that 61% of American adults feared AI could pose a threat to civilization. Philosopher Niels Wilde refutes the common thread that artificial intelligence inherently presents a looming threat to humanity, stating that these fears stem from perceived intelligence and lack of transparency in AI systems that more closely reflects the human aspects of it rather than those of a machine. AI alignment research studies how to design AI systems so that they follow intended objectives. == Debate == Physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and SpaceX founder Elon Musk have expressed concerns about the possibility that AI could develop to the point that humans could not control it, with Hawking theorizing that this could "spell the end of the human race". Stephen Hawking said in 2014 that "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks." Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer "incalculable benefits and risks" such as "technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand." In January 2015, Nick Bostrom joined Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, Elon Musk, Lord Martin Rees, Jaan Tallinn, and numerous AI researchers in signing the Future of Life Institute's open letter speaking to the potential risks and benefits associated with artificial intelligence. The signatories "believe that research on how to make AI systems robust and beneficial is both important and timely, and that there are concrete research directions that can be pursued today." Some focus has been placed on the development of trustworthy AI. Three statements have been posed as to why AI is not inherently trustworthy: 1. An entity X is trustworthy only if X has the right motivations, goodwill and/or adheres to moral obligations towards the trustor; 2. AI systems lack motivations, goodwill, and moral obligations; 3. Therefore, AI systems cannot be trustworthy. There are additional considerations within this framework of trustworthy AI that go further into the fields of explainable artificial intelligence and respect for human privacy. Zanotti and colleagues
Vicuna LLM
Vicuna LLM is an omnibus large language model used in AI research. Its methodology is to enable the public at large to contrast and compare the accuracy of LLMs "in the wild" (an example of citizen science) and to vote on their output; a question-and-answer chat format is used. At the beginning of each round two LLM chatbots from a diverse pool of nine are presented randomly and anonymously, their identities only being revealed upon voting on their answers. The user has the option of either replaying ("regenerating") a round, or beginning an entirely fresh one with new LLMs. (The user also has the option of choosing which LLMs to do battle.) Based on Llama 2, it is an open source project, and it itself has become the subject of academic research in the burgeoning field. A non-commercial, public demo of the Vicuna-13b model is available to access using LMSYS.
Random-fuzzy variable
In measurements, the measurement obtained can suffer from two types of uncertainties. The first is the random uncertainty which is due to the noise in the process and the measurement. The second contribution is due to the systematic uncertainty which may be present in the measuring instrument. Systematic errors, if detected, can be easily compensated as they are usually constant throughout the measurement process as long as the measuring instrument and the measurement process are not changed. But it can not be accurately known while using the instrument if there is a systematic error and if there is, how much? Hence, systematic uncertainty could be considered as a contribution of a fuzzy nature. This systematic error can be approximately modeled based on our past data about the measuring instrument and the process. Statistical methods can be used to calculate the total uncertainty from both systematic and random contributions in a measurement. However, the computational complexity is very high, and hence not desirable. L.A.Zadeh introduced the concepts of fuzzy variables and fuzzy sets. Fuzzy variables are based on the theory of possibility and hence are possibility distributions. This makes them suitable to handle any type of uncertainty, i.e., both systematic and random contributions to the total uncertainty. Random-fuzzy variable (RFV) is a type 2 fuzzy variable, defined using the mathematical possibility theory, used to represent the entire information associated to a measurement result. It has an internal possibility distribution and an external possibility distribution called membership functions. The internal distribution is the uncertainty contributions due to the systematic uncertainty and the bounds of the RFV are because of the random contributions. The external distribution gives the uncertainty bounds from all contributions. == Definition == A random-fuzzy Variable (RFV) is defined as a type 2 fuzzy variable which satisfies the following conditions: Both the internal and the external functions of the RFV can be identified. Both the internal and the external functions are modeled as possibility distributions (PD). Both the internal and external functions have a unitary value for possibility to the same interval of values. An RFV can be seen in the figure. The external membership function is the distribution in blue and the internal membership function is the distribution in red. Both the membership functions are possibility distributions. Both the internal and external membership functions have a unitary value of possibility only in the rectangular part of the RFV. Therefore, all three conditions have been satisfied. If there are only systematic errors in the measurement, then the RFV simply becomes a fuzzy variable which consists of just the internal membership function. Similarly, if there is no systematic error, then the RFV becomes a fuzzy variable with just the random contributions and therefore, is just the possibility distribution of the random contributions. == Construction == A random-fuzzy variable can be constructed using an internal possibility distribution (rinternal) and a random possibility distribution (rrandom). === The random distribution (rrandom) === rrandom is the possibility distribution of the random contributions to the uncertainty. Any measurement instrument or process suffers from random error contributions due to intrinsic noise or other effects. This is completely random in nature and is a normal probability distribution when several random contributions are combined according to the central limit theorem. However, there can also be random contributions from other probability distributions, such as a uniform distribution, gamma distribution and so on. The probability distribution can be modeled from the measurement data. Then, the probability distribution can be used to model an equivalent possibility distribution using the maximally specific probability-possibility transformation. Some common probability distributions and the corresponding possibility distributions can be seen in the figures. === The internal distribution (rinternal) === rinternal is the internal distribution in the RFV which is the possibility distribution of the systematic contribution to the total uncertainty. This distribution can be built based on the information that is available about the measuring instrument and the process. The largest possible distribution is the uniform or rectangular possibility distribution. This means that every value in the specified interval is equally possible. This actually represents the state of total ignorance according to the theory of evidence which means it represents a scenario in which there is maximum lack of information. This distribution is used for the systematic error when we have absolutely no idea about the systematic error except that it belongs to a particular interval of values. This is quite common in measurements. However, in certain cases, it may be known that certain values have a higher or lower degrees of belief than certain other values. In this case, depending on the degrees of belief for the values, an appropriate possibility distribution could be constructed. === The construction of the external distribution (rexternal) and the RFV === After modeling the random and internal possibility distribution, the external membership function, rexternal, of the RFV can be constructed by using the following equation: where x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is the mode of r random {\displaystyle r_{\textit {random}}} , which is the peak in the membership function of r r a n d o m {\displaystyle r_{random}} and Tmin is the minimum triangular norm. RFV can also be built from the internal and random distributions by considering the α-cuts of the two possibility distributions (PDs). An α-cut of a fuzzy variable F can be defined as Therefore, essentially an α-cut is the set of values for which the value of the membership function μ F ( a ) {\displaystyle \mu _{\rm {F}}(a)} of the fuzzy variable is greater than α. This gives the upper and lower bounds of the fuzzy variable F for each α-cut. The α-cut of an RFV, however, has 4 specific bounds and is given by R F V α = [ X a α , X b α , X c α , X d α ] {\displaystyle RFV^{\alpha }=[X_{a}^{\alpha },X_{b}^{\alpha },X_{c}^{\alpha },X_{d}^{\alpha }]} . X a α {\displaystyle X_{a}^{\alpha }} and X d α {\displaystyle X_{d}^{\alpha }} are the lower and upper bounds respectively of the external membership function (rexternal) which is a fuzzy variable on its own. X b α {\displaystyle X_{b}^{\alpha }} and X c α {\displaystyle X_{c}^{\alpha }} are the lower and upper bounds respectively of the internal membership function (rinternal) which is a fuzzy variable on its own. To build the RFV, let us consider the α-cuts of the two PDs i.e., rrandom and rinternal for the same value of α. This gives the lower and upper bounds for the two α-cuts. Let them be [ X L R α , X U R α ] {\displaystyle [X_{LR}^{\alpha },X_{UR}^{\alpha }]} and [ X L I α , X U I α ] {\displaystyle [X_{LI}^{\alpha },X_{UI}^{\alpha }]} for the random and internal distributions respectively. [ X L R α , X U R α ] {\displaystyle [X_{LR}^{\alpha },X_{UR}^{\alpha }]} can be again divided into two sub-intervals [ X L R α , x ∗ ] {\displaystyle [X_{LR}^{\alpha },x^{}]} and [ x ∗ , X U R α ] {\displaystyle [x^{},X_{UR}^{\alpha }]} where x ∗ {\displaystyle x^{}} is the mode of the fuzzy variable. Then, the α-cut for the RFV for the same value of α, R F V α = [ X a α , X b α , X c α , X d α ] {\displaystyle RFV^{\alpha }=[X_{a}^{\alpha },X_{b}^{\alpha },X_{c}^{\alpha },X_{d}^{\alpha }]} can be defined by Using the above equations, the α-cuts are calculated for every value of α which gives us the final plot of the RFV. A random-fuzzy variable is capable of giving a complete picture of the random and systematic contributions to the total uncertainty from the α-cuts for any confidence level as the confidence level is nothing but 1-α. An example for the construction of the corresponding external membership function (rexternal) and the RFV from a random PD and an internal PD can be seen in the following figure.