In automata theory, a finite-state machine is called a deterministic finite automaton (DFA), if each of its transitions is uniquely determined by its source state and input symbol, and reading an input symbol is required for each state transition. A nondeterministic finite automaton (NFA), or nondeterministic finite-state machine, does not need to obey these restrictions. In particular, every DFA is also an NFA. Sometimes the term NFA is used in a narrower sense, referring to an NFA that is not a DFA, but not in this article. Using the subset construction algorithm, each NFA can be translated to an equivalent DFA; i.e., a DFA recognizing the same formal language. Like DFAs, NFAs only recognize regular languages. NFAs were introduced in 1959 by Michael O. Rabin and Dana Scott, who also showed their equivalence to DFAs. NFAs are used in the implementation of regular expressions: Thompson's construction is an algorithm for compiling a regular expression to an NFA that can efficiently perform pattern matching on strings. Conversely, Kleene's algorithm can be used to convert an NFA into a regular expression (whose size is generally exponential in the input automaton). NFAs have been generalized in multiple ways, e.g., nondeterministic finite automata with ε-moves, finite-state transducers, pushdown automata, alternating automata, ω-automata, and probabilistic automata. Besides the DFAs, other known special cases of NFAs are unambiguous finite automata (UFA) and self-verifying finite automata (SVFA). == Informal introduction == There are at least two equivalent ways to describe the behavior of an NFA. The first way makes use of the nondeterminism in the name of an NFA. For each input symbol, the NFA transitions to a new state until all input symbols have been consumed. In each step, the automaton nondeterministically "chooses" one of the applicable transitions. If there exists at least one "lucky run", i.e. some sequence of choices leading to an accepting state after completely consuming the input, it is accepted. Otherwise, i.e. if no choice sequence at all can consume all the input and lead to an accepting state, the input is rejected. In the second way, the NFA consumes a string of input symbols, one by one. In each step, whenever two or more transitions are applicable, it "clones" itself into appropriately many copies, each one following a different transition. If no transition is applicable, the current copy is in a dead end, and it "dies". If, after consuming the complete input, any of the copies is in an accept state, the input is accepted, else, it is rejected. == Formal definition == For a more elementary introduction of the formal definition, see automata theory. === Automaton === An NFA is represented formally by a 5-tuple, ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle (Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} , consisting of a finite set of states Q {\displaystyle Q} , a finite set of input symbols called the alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } , a transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } : Q × Σ → P ( Q ) {\displaystyle Q\times \Sigma \rightarrow {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} , an initial (or start) state q 0 ∈ Q {\displaystyle q_{0}\in Q} , and a set of accepting (or final) states F ⊆ Q {\displaystyle F\subseteq Q} . Here, P ( Q ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} denotes the power set of Q {\displaystyle Q} . === Recognized language === Given an NFA M = ( Q , Σ , δ , q 0 , F ) {\displaystyle M=(Q,\Sigma ,\delta ,q_{0},F)} , its recognized language is denoted by L ( M ) {\displaystyle L(M)} , and is defined as the set of all strings over the alphabet Σ {\displaystyle \Sigma } that are accepted by M {\displaystyle M} . Loosely corresponding to the above informal explanations, there are several equivalent formal definitions of a string w = a 1 a 2 . . . a n {\displaystyle w=a_{1}a_{2}...a_{n}} being accepted by M {\displaystyle M} : w {\displaystyle w} is accepted if a sequence of states, r 0 , r 1 , . . . , r n {\displaystyle r_{0},r_{1},...,r_{n}} , exists in Q {\displaystyle Q} such that: r 0 = q 0 {\displaystyle r_{0}=q_{0}} r i + 1 ∈ δ ( r i , a i + 1 ) {\displaystyle r_{i+1}\in \delta (r_{i},a_{i+1})} , for i = 0 , … , n − 1 {\displaystyle i=0,\ldots ,n-1} r n ∈ F {\displaystyle r_{n}\in F} . In words, the first condition says that the machine starts in the start state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} . The second condition says that given each character of string w {\displaystyle w} , the machine will transition from state to state according to the transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } . The last condition says that the machine accepts w {\displaystyle w} if the last input of w {\displaystyle w} causes the machine to halt in one of the accepting states. In order for w {\displaystyle w} to be accepted by M {\displaystyle M} , it is not required that every state sequence ends in an accepting state, it is sufficient if one does. Otherwise, i.e. if it is impossible at all to get from q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} to a state from F {\displaystyle F} by following w {\displaystyle w} , it is said that the automaton rejects the string. The set of strings M {\displaystyle M} accepts is the language recognized by M {\displaystyle M} and this language is denoted by L ( M ) {\displaystyle L(M)} . Alternatively, w {\displaystyle w} is accepted if δ ∗ ( q 0 , w ) ∩ F ≠ ∅ {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(q_{0},w)\cap F\not =\emptyset } , where δ ∗ : Q × Σ ∗ → P ( Q ) {\displaystyle \delta ^{}:Q\times \Sigma ^{}\rightarrow {\mathcal {P}}(Q)} is defined recursively by: δ ∗ ( r , ε ) = { r } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(r,\varepsilon )=\{r\}} where ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } is the empty string, and δ ∗ ( r , x a ) = ⋃ r ′ ∈ δ ∗ ( r , x ) δ ( r ′ , a ) {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(r,xa)=\bigcup _{r'\in \delta ^{}(r,x)}\delta (r',a)} for all x ∈ Σ ∗ , a ∈ Σ {\displaystyle x\in \Sigma ^{},a\in \Sigma } . In words, δ ∗ ( r , x ) {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(r,x)} is the set of all states reachable from state r {\displaystyle r} by consuming the string x {\displaystyle x} . The string w {\displaystyle w} is accepted if some accepting state in F {\displaystyle F} can be reached from the start state q 0 {\displaystyle q_{0}} by consuming w {\displaystyle w} . === Initial state === The above automaton definition uses a single initial state, which is not necessary. Sometimes, NFAs are defined with a set of initial states. There is an easy construction that translates an NFA with multiple initial states to an NFA with a single initial state, which provides a convenient notation. == Example == The following automaton M, with a binary alphabet, determines if the input ends with a 1. Let M = ( { p , q } , { 0 , 1 } , δ , p , { q } ) {\displaystyle M=(\{p,q\},\{0,1\},\delta ,p,\{q\})} where the transition function δ {\displaystyle \delta } can be defined by this state transition table (cf. upper left picture): State Input 0 1 p { p } { p , q } q ∅ ∅ {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{|c|cc|}{\bcancel {{}_{\text{State}}\quad {}^{\text{Input}}}}&0&1\\\hline p&\{p\}&\{p,q\}\\q&\emptyset &\emptyset \end{array}}} Since the set δ ( p , 1 ) {\displaystyle \delta (p,1)} contains more than one state, M is nondeterministic. The language of M can be described by the regular language given by the regular expression (0|1)1. All possible state sequences for the input string "1011" are shown in the lower picture. The string is accepted by M since one state sequence satisfies the above definition; it does not matter that other sequences fail to do so. The picture can be interpreted in a couple of ways: In terms of the above "lucky-run" explanation, each path in the picture denotes a sequence of choices of M. In terms of the "cloning" explanation, each vertical column shows all clones of M at a given point in time, multiple arrows emanating from a node indicate cloning, a node without emanating arrows indicating the "death" of a clone. The feasibility to read the same picture in two ways also indicates the equivalence of both above explanations. Considering the first of the above formal definitions, "1011" is accepted since when reading it M may traverse the state sequence ⟨ r 0 , r 1 , r 2 , r 3 , r 4 ⟩ = ⟨ p , p , p , p , q ⟩ {\displaystyle \langle r_{0},r_{1},r_{2},r_{3},r_{4}\rangle =\langle p,p,p,p,q\rangle } , which satisfies conditions 1 to 3. Concerning the second formal definition, bottom-up computation shows that δ ∗ ( p , ε ) = { p } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,\varepsilon )=\{p\}} , hence δ ∗ ( p , 1 ) = δ ( p , 1 ) = { p , q } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,1)=\delta (p,1)=\{p,q\}} , hence δ ∗ ( p , 10 ) = δ ( p , 0 ) ∪ δ ( q , 0 ) = { p } ∪ { } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,10)=\delta (p,0)\cup \delta (q,0)=\{p\}\cup \{\}} , hence δ ∗ ( p , 101 ) = δ ( p , 1 ) = { p , q } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,101)=\delta (p,1)=\{p,q\}} , and hence δ ∗ ( p , 1011 ) = δ ( p , 1 ) ∪ δ ( q , 1 ) = { p , q } ∪ { } {\displaystyle \delta ^{}(p,1011)=\delta (p,1)\cup \delta (q,1)=\{p,q\}\cup \{\}} ; since that set is
Drops (app)
Drops is a language learning app that was created in Estonia by Daniel Farkas and Mark Szulyovszky in 2015. It is the second product from the company, after their first app, LearnInvisible, had issues in retaining a user's engagement over the required time period. The languages available include Native Hawaiian and Māori, and was classified as one of the fifty "Most Innovative Companies" for 2019 by Fast Company. The company partnered with Global Eagle Entertainment to include Travel Talk, a feature intended to focus on words and phrases frequently used by travelers. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the number of users increased by 55 percent in the United States and 92 percent in the United Kingdom. Droplets, a language app for children, includes profiles for multiple teachers working with remote students. The company also produces an app called Scripts, intended to help users learn to write alphabets. The app was purchased by the Norwegian company Kahoot! on 24 November 2020.
AlphaEvolve
AlphaEvolve is an evolutionary coding agent for designing advanced algorithms based on large language models such as Gemini. It was developed by Google DeepMind and unveiled in May 2025. == Design == AlphaEvolve aims to autonomously discover and refine algorithms through a combination of large language models (LLMs) and evolutionary computation. AlphaEvolve needs an evaluation function with metrics to optimize, and an initial algorithm. At each step, AlphaEvolve uses the LLM to produce variants of the existing algorithms, and then selects the most effective ones. Unlike domain-specific predecessors like AlphaFold or AlphaTensor, AlphaEvolve is designed as a general-purpose system. It can operate across a wide array of scientific and engineering tasks by automatically modifying code and optimizing for multiple objectives. Its architecture allows it to evaluate code programmatically, reducing reliance on human input and mitigating risks such as hallucinations common in standard LLM outputs. == Achievements == According to Google, across a selection of 50 open mathematical problems, the model was able to rediscover state-of-the-art solutions 75% of the time and discovered improved solutions 20% of the time, for example advancing the kissing number problem. AlphaEvolve was also used to optimize Google's computing ecosystem. Improved data center scheduling heuristics, enabled the recovery of 0.7% of stranded resources. It was also used to optimize TPU circuit design and Gemini's training matrix multiplication kernel. == Open source implementations == Following the publication of AlphaEvolve, several open source implementations have been developed by the research community. One such implementation is OpenEvolve, which implements distributed evolutionary algorithms, multi-language support, integration with various large language model providers, and automated discovery of high-performance GPU kernels that outperform expert-engineered baselines.
Lethal autonomous weapon
A lethal autonomous weapon (LAW), also known as a lethal autonomous weapon system (LAWS), autonomous weapon system (AWS), robotic weapon, or killer robot, is a type of military drone or military robot, which is autonomous in that it can independently search for and engage targets based on programmed constraints and descriptions. As of 2025, most military drones (including unmanned aerial vehicles and unmanned combat aerial vehicles) and military robots are not truly autonomous. LAWs may engage in drone warfare in the air, on land, on water, underwater, or in space. == Definitions == In weapons development, the term "autonomous" is somewhat ambiguous and can vary hugely between different scholars, nations and organizations. There is no definition of lethal autonomous weapon systems that is generally agreed upon among different countries. The official United States Department of Defense Policy on Autonomy in Weapon Systems (Department of Defense Directive 3000.09) defines an Autonomous Weapon System as one that "...once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by a human operator." Heather Roff, a writer for Case Western Reserve University School of Law, describes autonomous weapon systems as "... capable of learning and adapting their 'functioning in response to changing circumstances in the environment in which [they are] deployed,' as well as capable of making firing decisions on their own." The British Ministry of Defence states "Whilst definitions can vary, the key difference is that an automated system is capable of carrying out complicated tasks but is incapable of complex decision-making, whereas an autonomous system is capable of deciding a course of action without depending on human oversight and control." Scholars such as Peter Asaro and Mark Gubrud believe that any weapon system that is capable of releasing a lethal force without the operation, decision, or confirmation of a human supervisor can be deemed autonomous. == Automatic defensive systems == Some definitions of autonomous weapon systems are broad enough to include land mines and naval mines, simple automatically-triggered lethal weapons that have been in use for centuries. Some current examples of LAWs are automated "hardkill" active protection systems, such as a radar-guided close-in weapon systems (CIWS) used to defend ships that have been in use since the 1970s (e.g., the US Phalanx CIWS). Such systems can autonomously identify and attack oncoming missiles, rockets, artillery fire, aircraft, and surface vessels according to criteria set by the human operator. Similar systems exist for tanks, such as the Russian Arena, the Israeli Trophy, and the German AMAP-ADS. Several types of stationary sentry guns, which can fire at humans and vehicles, are used in South Korea and Israel. Many missile defence systems, such as Iron Dome, also have autonomous targeting capabilities. The main reason for not having a "human in the loop" in these systems is the need for rapid response. They have generally been used to protect personnel and installations against incoming projectiles. == Autonomous offensive systems == According to The Economist in 2018, as technology advances, applications of uncrewed undersea vehicles could include mine clearance, mine-laying, anti-submarine sensor networking in contested waters, patrolling with active sonar, resupplying manned submarines, and becoming low-cost missile platforms. In 2017 the Russian Federation was developing artificially intelligent missiles, drones, unmanned vehicles, military robots and medic robots. In 2018, the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review alleged that Russia was developing a "new intercontinental, nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered, undersea autonomous torpedo" named "Status 6". Israeli Minister Ayoob Kara stated in 2017 that Israel is developing military robots, including ones as small as flies. In October 2018, Zeng Yi, a senior executive at the Chinese defense firm Norinco, gave a speech in which he said that "In future battlegrounds, there will be no people fighting", and that the use of lethal autonomous weapons in warfare is "inevitable". In 2019, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper lashed out at China for selling drones capable of taking life with no human oversight. As of 2020, DARPA was working on making swarms of 250 autonomous lethal drones available to the American military. The US Navy is developing unmanned surface vehicles, also called sea drones, including Ghost Fleet Overlord, with plans to equip them with weapons and with the potential to use them semi-autonomously. In 2020 a Kargu 2 drone hunted down and attacked a human target in Libya, according to a report from the UN Security Council's Panel of Experts on Libya, published in March 2021. This may have been the first time an autonomous killer robot armed with lethal weaponry attacked human beings. In May 2021 Israel conducted an AI-guided combat drone swarm attack in Gaza. In the Russo-Ukrainian war, Ukraine has developed advanced drones with integrated artificial intelligence for a range of drone warfare purposes, including to attack infrastructure in Russia, although as of May 2026, Al Jazeera reported that humans remain in control of operation. == Ethical and legal issues == === Degree of human control === Three classifications of the degree of human control of autonomous weapon systems were laid out by Bonnie Docherty in a 2012 Human Rights Watch report. human-in-the-loop: a human must instigate the action of the weapon (in other words not fully autonomous). human-on-the-loop: a human may abort an action. human-out-of-the-loop: no human action is involved. === Standard used in US policy === Department of Defense Directive 3000.09 states that "Autonomous … weapons systems shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force." However, as noted in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the policy requires that autonomous weapon systems that kill people or use kinetic force, selecting and engaging targets without further human intervention, be certified as compliant with "appropriate levels" and other standards, not that such weapon systems cannot meet these standards and are therefore forbidden. "Semi-autonomous" hunter-killers that autonomously identify and attack targets do not even require certification. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert O. Work said in 2016 that the Defense Department would "not delegate lethal authority to a machine to make a decision", but might need to reconsider this since "authoritarian regimes" may do so. In October 2016 President Barack Obama stated that early in his career he was wary of a future in which a US president making use of drone warfare could "carry on perpetual wars all over the world, and a lot of them covert, without any accountability or democratic debate". In the US, security-related AI has fallen under the purview of the National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence since 2018. On October 31, 2019, the United States Department of Defense's Defense Innovation Board published the draft of a report outlining five principles for weaponized AI and making 12 recommendations for the ethical use of artificial intelligence by the Department of Defense that would ensure a human operator would always be able to look into the 'black box' and understand the kill-chain process. A major concern is how the report will be implemented. === Possible violations of ethics and international acts === Stuart Russell, professor of computer science from University of California, Berkeley stated the concern he has with LAWs is that his view is that it is unethical and inhumane. The main issue with this system is it is hard to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. There is concern by some economists and legal scholars about whether LAWs would violate International Humanitarian Law, especially the principle of distinction, which requires the ability to discriminate combatants from non-combatants, and the principle of proportionality, which requires that damage to civilians be proportional to the military aim. This concern is often invoked as a reason to ban "killer robots" altogether - but it is doubtful that this concern can be an argument against LAWs that do not violate International Humanitarian Law. A 2021 report by the American Congressional Research Service states that "there are no domestic or international legal prohibitions on the development of use of LAWs," although it acknowledges ongoing talks at the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). LAWs are said by some to blur the boundaries of who is responsible for a particular killing. Philosopher Robert Sparrow argues that autonomous weapons are causally but not morally responsible, similar to child soldiers. In each case, he argues there is a risk of atrocities occurring without an appropriate subject to hold responsible, which violates jus in bell
Computational theory of mind
In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of. == History == Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. A version of the theory was put forward by Peter Putnam and Robert W. Fuller in 1964. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, aided by his then PhD student, philosopher and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor, who continued the research as a post-doc in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others. == Classical computational theory of mind == The CTM holds that the human mind is a computational system that is realized (i.e., physically implemented) by neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood. In classical computational theory of mind (CCTM), computation is modeled in terms of Turing machines which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the internal state of the machine. A Turing machine is an abstract machine with unlimited time and storage. CCTM does not pretend that the mind looks like a Turing machine, but instead uses Turing machines as a formalism. Alan Turing argued that any symbolic algorithm executed by a human brain can in theory be replicated on a Turing machine. The critical aspect of such a computational model is that it allows to abstract away from particular physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation. For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states, performed according to a rule. Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then compute the representation. Unlike CTM, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's view, the mind is a computational system that processes the language of thought. == Variants == Connectionist computationalism models the mind as a neural network. Steven Pinker and Alan Prince distinguish two types of connectionists: eliminative and implementationist. Eliminative connectionists generally reject classical CTMs and the idea of a structured, symbolic mind, whereas implementationists view neural networks and Turing machines as two potentially complementary levels of analysis. It is indeed possible in theory to implement a neural network in a Turing machine, or a Turing machine in a neural network. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts, the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia, are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness. == "Computer metaphor" == Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is literally a computational system. "Computational system" is not intended to mean a modern-day electronic computer. == Pancomputationalism == CTM raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of states individuated by a physical description of the system. Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of pancomputationalism. Searle wrote:the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any program, including any program implemented in the brain.In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA, philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account, syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007. == Criticism == A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind. An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind. Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door. With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not understand the Chinese conversation. This was originally written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds. Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections. They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument, can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in general, and not computational theories specifically. Objections have also been put forth that are directly tailored for computational theories of mind. Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent. Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy) became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons, including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem. Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question of whether the human mind can implement computational states is not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteri
Caffe (software)
Caffe (Convolutional Architecture for Fast Feature Embedding) is a deep learning framework, originally developed at University of California, Berkeley. It is open source, under a BSD license. It is written in C++, with a Python interface. == History == Yangqing Jia created the Caffe project during his PhD at UC Berkeley, while working the lab of Trevor Darrell. The first version, called "DeCAF", made its first appearance in Spring 2013 when it was used for the ILSVRC challenge (later called ImageNet). The library was named Caffe and released to the public in December 2013. It reached end-of-support in 2018. It is hosted on GitHub. == Features == Caffe supports many different types of deep learning architectures geared towards image classification and image segmentation. It supports CNN, RCNN, LSTM and fully-connected neural network designs. Caffe supports GPU- and CPU-based acceleration computational kernel libraries such as Nvidia cuDNN and Intel MKL. == Applications == Caffe is being used in academic research projects, startup prototypes, and even large-scale industrial applications in vision, speech, and multimedia. Yahoo! has also integrated Caffe with Apache Spark to create CaffeOnSpark, a distributed deep learning framework. == Caffe2 == In April 2017, Facebook announced Caffe2, which included new features such as recurrent neural network (RNN). At the end of March 2018, Caffe2 was merged into PyTorch.
Google Brain
Google Brain was a deep learning artificial intelligence research team that served as the sole AI branch of Google before being incorporated under the newer umbrella of Google AI, a research division at Google dedicated to artificial intelligence. Formed in 2011, it combined open-ended machine learning research with information systems and large-scale computing resources. It created tools such as TensorFlow, which allow neural networks to be used by the public, and multiple internal AI research projects, and aimed to create research opportunities in machine learning and natural language processing. It was merged into former Google sister company DeepMind to form Google DeepMind in April 2023. == History == The Google Brain project began in 2011 as a part-time research collaboration between Google fellow Jeff Dean and Google Researcher Greg Corrado. Google Brain started as a Google X project and became so successful that it was graduated back to Google: Astro Teller has said that Google Brain paid for the entire cost of Google X. In June 2012, The New York Times reported that a cluster of 16,000 processors in 1,000 computers dedicated to mimicking some aspects of human brain activity had successfully trained itself to recognize a cat based on 10 million digital images taken from YouTube videos. The story was also covered by National Public Radio (NPR). In March 2013, Google hired Geoffrey Hinton, a leading researcher in the deep learning field, and acquired the company DNNResearch Inc. headed by Hinton. Hinton said that he would be dividing his future time between his university research and his work at Google. In April 2023, Google Brain merged with Google sister company DeepMind to form Google DeepMind, as part of the company's continued efforts to accelerate work on AI. == Team and location == Google Brain was initially established by Google Fellow Jeff Dean and visiting Stanford professor Andrew Ng. In 2014, the team included Jeff Dean, Quoc V. Le, Ilya Sutskever, Alex Krizhevsky, Samy Bengio, and Vincent Vanhoucke. In 2017, team members included Anelia Angelova, Samy Bengio, Greg Corrado, George Dahl, Michael Isard, Anjuli Kannan, Hugo Larochelle, Chris Olah, Benoit Steiner, Vincent Vanhoucke, Vijay Vasudevan, and Fernanda Viegas. Chris Lattner, who created Apple's programming language Swift and then ran Tesla's autonomy team for six months, joined Google Brain's team in August 2017. Lattner left the team in January 2020 and joined SiFive. As of 2021, Google Brain was led by Jeff Dean, Geoffrey Hinton, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Other members include Katherine Heller, Pi-Chuan Chang, Ian Simon, Jean-Philippe Vert, Nevena Lazic, Anelia Angelova, Lukasz Kaiser, Carrie Jun Cai, Eric Breck, Ruoming Pang, Carlos Riquelme, Hugo Larochelle, and David Ha. Samy Bengio left the team in April 2021, and Zoubin Ghahramani took on his responsibilities. Google Research includes Google Brain and is based in Mountain View. It also has satellite groups in Accra, Amsterdam, Atlanta, Beijing, Berlin, Cambridge, Israel, Los Angeles, London, Montreal, Munich, New York City, Paris, Pittsburgh, Princeton, San Francisco, Seattle, Tokyo, Toronto, and Zurich. == Projects == === Artificial-intelligence-devised encryption system === In October 2016, Google Brain designed an experiment to determine that neural networks are capable of learning secure symmetric encryption. In this experiment, three neural networks were created: Alice, Bob and Eve. Adhering to the idea of a generative adversarial network (GAN), the goal of the experiment was for Alice to send an encrypted message to Bob that Bob could decrypt, but the adversary, Eve, could not. Alice and Bob maintained an advantage over Eve, in that they shared a key used for encryption and decryption. In doing so, Google Brain demonstrated the capability of neural networks to learn secure encryption. === Image enhancement === In February 2017, Google Brain determined a probabilistic method for converting pictures with 8x8 resolution to a resolution of 32x32. The method built upon an already existing probabilistic model called pixelCNN to generate pixel translations. The proposed software utilizes two neural networks to make approximations for the pixel makeup of translated images. The first network, known as the "conditioning network," downsizes high-resolution images to 8x8 and attempts to create mappings from the original 8x8 image to these higher-resolution ones. The other network, known as the "prior network," uses the mappings from the previous network to add more detail to the original image. The resulting translated image is not the same image in higher resolution, but rather a 32x32 resolution estimation based on other existing high-resolution images. Google Brain's results indicate the possibility for neural networks to enhance images. === Google Translate === The Google Brain contributed to the Google Translate project by employing a new deep learning system that combines artificial neural networks with vast databases of multilingual texts. In September 2016, Google Neural Machine Translation (GNMT) was launched, an end-to-end learning framework, able to learn from a large number of examples. Previously, Google Translate's Phrase-Based Machine Translation (PBMT) approach would statistically analyze word by word and try to match corresponding words in other languages without considering the surrounding phrases in the sentence. But rather than choosing a replacement for each individual word in the desired language, GNMT evaluates word segments in the context of the rest of the sentence to choose more accurate replacements. Compared to older PBMT models, the GNMT model scored a 24% improvement in similarity to human translation, with a 60% reduction in errors. The GNMT has also shown significant improvement for notoriously difficult translations, like Chinese to English. While the introduction of the GNMT has increased the quality of Google Translate's translations for the pilot languages, it was very difficult to create such improvements for all of its 103 languages. Addressing this problem, the Google Brain Team was able to develop a Multilingual GNMT system, which extended the previous one by enabling translations between multiple languages. Furthermore, it allows for Zero-Shot Translations, which are translations between two languages that the system has never explicitly seen before. Google announced that Google Translate can now also translate without transcribing, using neural networks. This means that it is possible to translate speech in one language directly into text in another language, without first transcribing it to text. According to the Researchers at Google Brain, this intermediate step can be avoided using neural networks. In order for the system to learn this, they exposed it to many hours of Spanish audio together with the corresponding English text. The different layers of neural networks, replicating the human brain, were able to link the corresponding parts and subsequently manipulate the audio waveform until it was transformed to English text. Another drawback of the GNMT model is that it causes the time of translation to increase exponentially with the number of words in the sentence. This caused the Google Brain Team to add 2000 more processors to ensure the new translation process would still be fast and reliable. === Robotics === Aiming to improve traditional robotics control algorithms where new skills of a robot need to be hand-programmed, robotics researchers at Google Brain are developing machine learning techniques to allow robots to learn new skills on their own. They also attempt to develop ways for information sharing between robots so that robots can learn from each other during their learning process, also known as cloud robotics. As a result, Google has launched the Google Cloud Robotics Platform for developers in 2019, an effort to combine robotics, AI, and the cloud to enable efficient robotic automation through cloud-connected collaborative robots. Robotics research at Google Brain has focused mostly on improving and applying deep learning algorithms to enable robots to complete tasks by learning from experience, simulation, human demonstrations, and/or visual representations. For example, Google Brain researchers showed that robots can learn to pick and throw rigid objects into selected boxes by experimenting in an environment without being pre-programmed to do so. In another research, researchers trained robots to learn behaviors such as pouring liquid from a cup; robots learned from videos of human demonstrations recorded from multiple viewpoints. Google Brain researchers have collaborated with other companies and academic institutions on robotics research. In 2016, the Google Brain Team collaborated with researchers at X in a research on learning hand-eye coordination for robotic grasping. Their method allowed real-time robot control for grasping novel objec