The directed-energy weapon wildfire conspiracy theories are claims circulating on social media and in fringe commentary that 2020s wildfires in places such as California, Hawaii and Texas were started or steered by directed-energy weapons or other lasers or directed-energy systems rather than by the documented ignition sources identified by investigators. Fact-checking organisations and newsrooms have repeatedly shown that widely shared images and clips said to depict “beams from the sky” are unrelated, miscaptioned or fabricated, and that official inquiries point to causes such as damaged or re-energised power lines, vegetation and extreme wind conditions. Coverage of the January 2025 Los Angeles fires described a resurgence of familiar hoaxes while local and federal agencies coordinated public rebuttals. == Background == Rumours linking directed-energy weapons to wildfire outbreaks appeared during earlier disaster seasons, then re-emerged at scale during the 2018 Camp Fire and again with the 2023 Maui wildfires and the 2025 Los Angeles fires. Journalists documented how large disasters reliably attract miscaptioned imagery and speculative narratives that portray official explanations as cover stories, while researchers and emergency managers noted that such claims tend to flourish during the information vacuum that accompanies fast-moving events. == Narratives and debunks == Recurring claims include assertions that videos show lasers igniting neighbourhoods, that “green” or “blue” items or roofs were spared because lasers cannot burn those colours, that trees remaining upright indicate precision targeting of houses, and that beams recorded over Hawaii or Texas came from secret platforms. Investigations show that a purported laser-strike video was actually an explosion at a Russian gas station recorded years earlier, that a photograph said to capture an “attack” was an Ohio gas flare from 2018, and that a separate video of green lights over Hawaii was captured months before the Maui fires by an astronomical camera and is unrelated. Fact-checks addressing colour myths have further explained that images of intact blue roofs were either misinterpreted or in at least one widely shared instance artificially generated, and that laser interaction with materials is not governed by such simplistic rules. == Investigations and identified causes == Authorities who examined specific incidents have published findings that contradict DEW narratives. A multi-agency investigation into the Maui disaster concluded that downed and later re-energised lines ignited an initial morning fire that re-kindled under extreme winds in the afternoon, with reports detailing the timeline and infrastructure context; summaries by national outlets echoed those conclusions. Investigators of the February 2024 Smokehouse Creek Fire in the Texas Panhandle reported that power lines ignited both the state’s largest wildfire and another major blaze, and the regional utility acknowledged its facilities appeared to have been involved; subsequent media coverage outlined the findings and regulatory follow-up. For the 2018 Camp Fire in Northern California, public reports from Butte County and subsequent proceedings identified PG&E transmission equipment as the source of ignition, with documentation of maintenance issues on the Caribou–Palermo line preceding the event. == Platform and agency responses == As major fires burned in and around Los Angeles in January 2025, officials from city agencies and national partners pursued a coordinated strategy to counter falsehoods by issuing timely updates, flagging fake imagery and directing residents to verified resources. Reporters described how federal emergency managers and local departments used social channels and briefings to rebut specific rumours, including claims about lasers and targeted ignition, and to clarify that early imagery often misleads during fast-moving disasters.
Model compression
Model compression is a machine learning technique for reducing the size of trained models. Large models can achieve high accuracy, but often at the cost of significant resource requirements. Compression techniques aim to compress models without significant performance reduction. Smaller models require less storage space, and consume less memory and compute during inference. Compressed models enable deployment on resource-constrained devices such as smartphones, embedded systems, edge computing devices, and consumer electronics computers. Efficient inference is also valuable for large corporations that serve large model inference over an API, allowing them to reduce computational costs and improve response times for users. Model compression is not to be confused with knowledge distillation, in which a smaller "student" model is trained to imitate the input-output behavior of a larger "teacher" model (as opposed to using the "teacher"'s trained parameters or the "teacher"'s training targets). == Techniques == Several techniques are employed for model compression. === Pruning === Pruning sparsifies a large model by setting some parameters to exactly zero. This effectively reduces the number of parameters. This allows the use of sparse matrix operations, which are faster than dense matrix operations. Pruning criteria can be based on magnitudes of parameters, the statistical pattern of neural activations, Hessian values, etc. === Quantization === Quantization reduces the numerical precision of weights and activations. For example, instead of storing weights as 32-bit floating-point numbers, they can be represented using 8-bit integers. Low-precision parameters take up less space, and takes less compute to perform arithmetic with. It is also possible to quantize some parameters more aggressively than others, so for example, a less important parameter can have 8-bit precision while another, more important parameter, can have 16-bit precision. Inference with such models requires mixed-precision arithmetic. Quantized models can also be used during training (rather than after training). PyTorch implements automatic mixed-precision (AMP), which performs autocasting, gradient scaling, and loss scaling. === Low-rank factorization === Weight matrices can be approximated by low-rank matrices. Let W {\displaystyle W} be a weight matrix of shape m × n {\displaystyle m\times n} . A low-rank approximation is W ≈ U V T {\displaystyle W\approx UV^{T}} , where U {\displaystyle U} and V {\displaystyle V} are matrices of shapes m × k , n × k {\displaystyle m\times k,n\times k} . When k {\displaystyle k} is small, this both reduces the number of parameters needed to represent W {\displaystyle W} approximately, and accelerates matrix multiplication by W {\displaystyle W} . Low-rank approximations can be found by singular value decomposition (SVD). The choice of rank for each weight matrix is a hyperparameter, and jointly optimized as a mixed discrete-continuous optimization problem. The rank of weight matrices may also be pruned after training, taking into account the effect of activation functions like ReLU on the implicit rank of the weight matrices. == Training == Model compression may be decoupled from training, that is, a model is first trained without regard for how it might be compressed, then it is compressed. However, it may also be combined with training. The "train big, then compress" method trains a large model for a small number of training steps (less than it would be if it were trained to convergence), then heavily compress the model. It is found that at the same compute budget, this method results in a better model than lightly compressed, small models. In Deep Compression, the compression has three steps. First loop (pruning): prune all weights lower than a threshold, then finetune the network, then prune again, etc. Second loop (quantization): cluster weights, then enforce weight sharing among all weights in each cluster, then finetune the network, then cluster again, etc. Third step: Use Huffman coding to losslessly compress the model. The SqueezeNet paper reported that Deep Compression achieved a compression ratio of 35 on AlexNet, and a ratio of ~10 on SqueezeNets.
Blended artificial intelligence
Blended artificial intelligence (blended AI) refers to the blending of different artificial intelligence techniques or approaches to achieve more robust and practical solutions. It involves integrating multiple AI models, algorithms, and technologies to leverage their respective strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. == Background == In the context of machine learning, blended AI can involve using different types of models, such as generative AI, decision trees, neural networks, and support vector machines. By combining their results, predictions are more accurate and reliable. This blending of models can be done through techniques like ensemble learning, where multiple models are trained independently and their predictions are combined to make a final decision. Blended AI can also involve combining different AI techniques or technologies, such as natural language processing, computer vision, and expert systems, to tackle complex problems that require a multi-dimensional approach. For example, in a sales scenario AI could be used for lead generation and gathering information from social media such as LinkedIn posts, or understanding a prospect's hobbies and interests. Another blended AI could achieve customer profiling including past interactions and purchasing habits, by them, their industry and growth areas. Blended AI could be used to do predictive analytics to look at historical sales data, market trends, and external factors to generate accurate sales forecasts. This method is critical to gauge and increase "efficiency, revenue, and productivity". Lastly, another could integrate all the information into the CRM to build and maintain better prospect and customer profiles. Blended AI aims to leverage the strengths of different AI techniques and technologies, allowing them to complement each other and create more powerful and comprehensive AI solutions. By combining multiple approaches, blended AI aims to achieve better performance, higher accuracy, improved robustness, and enhanced capabilities in solving diverse and challenging problems.
Amazon Bedrock
Amazon Bedrock is a cloud computing service provided by Amazon Web Services (AWS) for building generative artificial intelligence applications. Launched in 2023, the platform provides a unified API to access foundation models (FMs) from several AI companies, alongside related tools. Bedrock is a serverless computing service which competes with similar enterprise AI platforms such as Microsoft Foundry and Google Cloud Platform. == History == Amazon announced Bedrock on April 13, 2023. The service became generally available on September 28, 2023. Throughout 2024 and 2025, AWS expanded the service to include AI agents, which allow models to interact with external systems. == Features == Knowledge Bases: a managed workflow for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), which allows models to pull facts from private data stored in Amazon S3. Guardrails: a security feature that allows administrators to set content filters and personally identifiable information redaction across all models in the platform to increase the safety and compliance of AI deployments. == PartyRock == In November 2023, Amazon launched PartyRock, a web-based no-code environment for building generative AI applications. The platform uses a natural language interface to translate user descriptions into software widgets. These widgets enable specific AI behaviors, including text-based prompts, conversational agents, generating images, and the summarization and querying of user-uploaded documents. Although it initially launched with a limited-time free trial, AWS transitioned the service to a recurring free daily usage credit model in early 2025.
Diagnosis (artificial intelligence)
As a subfield in artificial intelligence, diagnosis is concerned with the development of algorithms and techniques that are able to determine whether the behaviour of a system is correct. If the system is not functioning correctly, the algorithm should be able to determine, as accurately as possible, which part of the system is failing, and which kind of fault it is facing. The computation is based on observations, which provide information on the current behaviour. The expression diagnosis also refers to the answer of the question of whether the system is malfunctioning or not, and to the process of computing the answer. This word comes from the medical context where a diagnosis is the process of identifying a disease by its symptoms. == Example == An example of diagnosis is the process of a garage mechanic with an automobile. The mechanic will first try to detect any abnormal behavior based on the observations on the car and his knowledge of this type of vehicle. If he finds out that the behavior is abnormal, the mechanic will try to refine his diagnosis by using new observations and possibly testing the system, until he discovers the faulty component; the mechanic plays an important role in the vehicle diagnosis. == Expert diagnosis == The expert diagnosis (or diagnosis by expert system) is based on experience with the system. Using this experience, a mapping is built that efficiently associates the observations to the corresponding diagnoses. The experience can be provided: By a human operator. In this case, the human knowledge must be translated into a computer language. By examples of the system behaviour. In this case, the examples must be classified as correct or faulty (and, in the latter case, by the type of fault). Machine learning methods are then used to generalize from the examples. The main drawbacks of these methods are: The difficulty acquiring the expertise. The expertise is typically only available after a long period of use of the system (or similar systems). Thus, these methods are unsuitable for safety- or mission-critical systems (such as a nuclear power plant, or a robot operating in space). Moreover, the acquired expert knowledge can never be guaranteed to be complete. In case a previously unseen behaviour occurs, leading to an unexpected observation, it is impossible to give a diagnosis. The complexity of the learning. The off-line process of building an expert system can require a large amount of time and computer memory. The size of the final expert system. As the expert system aims to map any observation to a diagnosis, it will in some cases require a huge amount of storage space. The lack of robustness. If even a small modification is made on the system, the process of constructing the expert system must be repeated. A slightly different approach is to build an expert system from a model of the system rather than directly from an expertise. An example is the computation of a diagnoser for the diagnosis of discrete event systems. This approach can be seen as model-based, but it benefits from some advantages and suffers some drawbacks of the expert system approach. == Model-based diagnosis == Model-based diagnosis is an example of abductive reasoning using a model of the system. In general, it works as follows: We have a model that describes the behaviour of the system (or artefact). The model is an abstraction of the behaviour of the system and can be incomplete. In particular, the faulty behaviour is generally little-known, and the faulty model may thus not be represented. Given observations of the system, the diagnosis system simulates the system using the model, and compares the observations actually made to the observations predicted by the simulation. The modelling can be simplified by the following rules (where A b {\displaystyle Ab\,} is the Abnormal predicate): ¬ A b ( S ) ⇒ I n t 1 ∧ O b s 1 {\displaystyle \neg Ab(S)\Rightarrow Int1\wedge Obs1} A b ( S ) ⇒ I n t 2 ∧ O b s 2 {\displaystyle Ab(S)\Rightarrow Int2\wedge Obs2} (fault model) The semantics of these formulae is the following: if the behaviour of the system is not abnormal (i.e. if it is normal), then the internal (unobservable) behaviour will be I n t 1 {\displaystyle Int1\,} and the observable behaviour O b s 1 {\displaystyle Obs1\,} . Otherwise, the internal behaviour will be I n t 2 {\displaystyle Int2\,} and the observable behaviour O b s 2 {\displaystyle Obs2\,} . Given the observations O b s {\displaystyle Obs\,} , the problem is to determine whether the system behaviour is normal or not ( ¬ A b ( S ) {\displaystyle \neg Ab(S)\,} or A b ( S ) {\displaystyle Ab(S)\,} ). This is an example of abductive reasoning. == Diagnosability == A system is said to be diagnosable if whatever the behavior of the system, we will be able to determine without ambiguity a unique diagnosis. The problem of diagnosability is very important when designing a system because on one hand one may want to reduce the number of sensors to reduce the cost, and on the other hand one may want to increase the number of sensors to increase the probability of detecting a faulty behavior. Several algorithms for dealing with these problems exist. One class of algorithms answers the question whether a system is diagnosable; another class looks for sets of sensors that make the system diagnosable, and optionally comply to criteria such as cost optimization. The diagnosability of a system is generally computed from the model of the system. In applications using model-based diagnosis, such a model is already present and doesn't need to be built from scratch.
Attensity
Attensity was an American company that provided social analytics and engagement applications for social customer relationship management (social CRM). Attensity's text analytics software applications extracted facts, relationships and sentiment from unstructured data. == History == Attensity was founded in 2000. An early investor in Attensity was In-Q-Tel, which funds technology to support the missions of the US Government and the broader DOD. InTTENSITY, an independent company that has combined Inxight with Attensity Software (the only joint development project that combines two InQTel funded software packages), was the exclusive distributor and outlet for Attensity in the Federal Market. In 2009, Attensity Corp., then based in Palo Alto, merged with Germany's Empolis and Living-e AG to form Attensity Group. In 2010, Attensity Group acquired Biz360, a provider of social media monitoring and market intelligence solutions. In early 2012, Attensity Group divested itself of the Empolis business unit via a management buyout; that unit currently conducts business under its pre-merger name. Attensity Group was a closely held private company. Its majority shareholder was Aeris Capital, a private Swiss investment office advising a high-net-worth individual and his charitable foundation. Foundation Capital, Granite Ventures, and Scale Venture Partners were among Biz360's investors and thus became shareholders in Attensity Group. In February 2016, Attensity's IP assets were acquired by InContact, and Attensity closed.
Computer-assisted proof
A computer-assisted proof is a mathematical proof that has been at least partially generated by computer. Most computer-aided proofs to date have been implementations of large proofs-by-exhaustion of a mathematical theorem. The idea is to use a computer program to perform lengthy computations, and to provide a proof that the result of these computations implies the given theorem. In 1976, the four color theorem was the first major theorem to be verified using a computer program. Attempts have also been made in the area of artificial intelligence research to create smaller, explicit, new proofs of mathematical theorems from the bottom up using automated reasoning techniques such as heuristic search. Such automated theorem provers have proved a number of new results and found new proofs for known theorems. Additionally, interactive proof assistants allow mathematicians to develop human-readable proofs which are nonetheless formally verified for correctness. Since these proofs are generally human-surveyable (albeit with difficulty, as with the proof of the Robbins conjecture) they do not share the controversial implications of computer-aided proofs-by-exhaustion. == Methods == One method for using computers in mathematical proofs is by means of so-called validated numerics or rigorous numerics. This means computing numerically yet with mathematical rigour. One uses set-valued arithmetic and inclusion principle in order to ensure that the set-valued output of a numerical program encloses the solution of the original mathematical problem. This is done by controlling, enclosing and propagating round-off and truncation errors using for example interval arithmetic. More precisely, one reduces the computation to a sequence of elementary operations, say ( + , − , × , / ) {\displaystyle (+,-,\times ,/)} . In a computer, the result of each elementary operation is rounded off by the computer precision. However, one can construct an interval provided by upper and lower bounds on the result of an elementary operation. Then one proceeds by replacing numbers with intervals and performing elementary operations between such intervals of representable numbers. == Philosophical objections == Computer-assisted proofs are the subject of some controversy in the mathematical world, with Thomas Tymoczko first to articulate objections. Those who adhere to Tymoczko's arguments believe that lengthy computer-assisted proofs are not, in some sense, 'real' mathematical proofs because they involve so many logical steps that they are not practically verifiable by human beings, and that mathematicians are effectively being asked to replace logical deduction from assumed axioms with trust in an empirical computational process, which is potentially affected by errors in the computer program, as well as defects in the runtime environment and hardware. Other mathematicians believe that lengthy computer-assisted proofs should be regarded as calculations, rather than proofs: the proof algorithm itself should be proved valid, so that its use can then be regarded as a mere "verification". Arguments that computer-assisted proofs are subject to errors in their source programs, compilers, and hardware can be resolved by providing a formal proof of correctness for the computer program (an approach which was successfully applied to the four color theorem in 2005) as well as replicating the result using different programming languages, different compilers, and different computer hardware. Another possible way of verifying computer-aided proofs is to generate their reasoning steps in a machine readable form, and then use a proof checker program to demonstrate their correctness. Since validating a given proof is much easier than finding a proof, the checker program is simpler than the original assistant program, and it is correspondingly easier to gain confidence into its correctness. However, this approach of using a computer program to prove the output of another program correct does not appeal to computer proof skeptics, who see it as adding another layer of complexity without addressing the perceived need for human understanding. Another argument against computer-aided proofs is that they lack mathematical elegance—that they provide no insights or new and useful concepts. In fact, this is an argument that could be advanced against any lengthy proof by exhaustion. An additional philosophical issue raised by computer-aided proofs is whether they make mathematics into a quasi-empirical science, where the scientific method becomes more important than the application of pure reason in the area of abstract mathematical concepts. This directly relates to the argument within mathematics as to whether mathematics is based on ideas, or "merely" an exercise in formal symbol manipulation. It also raises the question whether, if according to the Platonist view, all possible mathematical objects in some sense "already exist", whether computer-aided mathematics is an observational science like astronomy, rather than an experimental one like physics or chemistry. This controversy within mathematics is occurring at the same time as questions are being asked in the physics community about whether twenty-first century theoretical physics is becoming too mathematical, and leaving behind its experimental roots. The emerging field of experimental mathematics is confronting this debate head-on by focusing on numerical experiments as its main tool for mathematical exploration. == Theorems proved with the help of computer programs == Inclusion in this list does not imply that a formal computer-checked proof exists, but rather, that a computer program has been involved in some way. See the main articles for details.