The Loebner Prize was an annual competition in artificial intelligence that awarded prizes to the computer programs considered by the judges to be the most human-like. The format of the competition was that of a standard Turing test. In each round, a human judge simultaneously held textual conversations with a computer program and a human being via computer. Based upon the responses, the judge would attempt to determine which was which. The contest was launched in 1990 by Hugh Loebner in conjunction with the Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies, Massachusetts, United States. In 2004 and 2005, it was held in Loebner's apartment in New York City. Within the field of artificial intelligence, the Loebner Prize is somewhat controversial; the most prominent critic, Marvin Minsky, called it a publicity stunt that does not help the field along. Beginning in 2014, it was organised by the AISB at Bletchley Park. It has also been associated with Flinders University, Dartmouth College, the Science Museum in London, University of Reading and Ulster University, Magee Campus, Derry, UK City of Culture. For the final 2019 competition, the format changed. There was no panel of judges. Instead, the chatbots were judged by the public and there were to be no human competitors. The prize has been reported as defunct as of 2020. == Prizes == Originally, $2,000 was awarded for the most human-seeming program in the competition. The prize was $3,000 in 2005 and $2,250 in 2006. In 2008, $3,000 was awarded. In addition, there were two one-time-only prizes that have never been awarded. $25,000 is offered for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human and which can convince judges that the human is the computer program. $100,000 is the reward for the first program that judges cannot distinguish from a real human in a Turing test that includes deciphering and understanding text, visual, and auditory input. The competition was planned to end after the achievement of this prize. == Competition rules and restrictions == The rules varied over the years and early competitions featured restricted conversation Turing tests but since 1995 the discussion has been unrestricted. For the three entries in 2007, Robert Medeksza, Noah Duncan and Rollo Carpenter, some basic "screening questions" were used by the sponsor to evaluate the state of the technology. These included simple questions about the time, what round of the contest it is, etc.; general knowledge ("What is a hammer for?"); comparisons ("Which is faster, a train or a plane?"); and questions demonstrating memory for preceding parts of the same conversation. "All nouns, adjectives and verbs will come from a dictionary suitable for children or adolescents under the age of 12." Entries did not need to respond "intelligently" to the questions to be accepted. For the first time in 2008 the sponsor allowed introduction of a preliminary phase to the contest opening up the competition to previously disallowed web-based entries judged by a variety of invited interrogators. The available rules do not state how interrogators are selected or instructed. Interrogators (who judge the systems) have limited time: 5 minutes per entity in the 2003 competition, 20+ per pair in 2004–2007 competitions, 5 minutes to conduct simultaneous conversations with a human and the program in 2008–2009, increased to 25 minutes of simultaneous conversation since 2010. == Criticisms == The prize has long been scorned by experts in the field, for a variety of reasons. It is regarded by many as a publicity stunt. Marvin Minsky scathingly offered a "prize" to anyone who could stop the competition. Loebner responded by jokingly observing that Minsky's offering a prize to stop the competition effectively made him a co-sponsor. The rules of the competition have encouraged poorly qualified judges to make rapid judgements. Interactions between judges and competitors was originally very brief, for example effectively 2.5 mins of questioning, which permitted only a few questions. Questioning was initially restricted to a single topic of the contestant's choice, such as "whimsical conversation", a domain suiting standard chatbot tricks. Competition entrants do not aim at understanding or intelligence but resort to basic ELIZA style tricks, and successful entrants find deception and pretense is rewarded. == Contests == See article history for more details of some earlier contests. A very incomplete listing of a few of the contests: === 2003 === In 2003, the contest was organised by Professor Richard H. R. Harper and Dr. Lynne Hamill from the Digital World Research Centre at the University of Surrey. Although no bot passed the Turing test, the winner was Jabberwock, created by Juergen Pirner. Second was Elbot (Fred Roberts, Artificial Solutions). Third was Jabberwacky, (Rollo Carpenter). === 2006 === In 2006, the contest was organised by Tim Child (CEO of Televirtual) and Huma Shah. On August 30, the four finalists were announced: Rollo Carpenter Richard Churchill and Marie-Claire Jenkins Noah Duncan Robert Medeksza The contest was held on 17 September in the VR theatre, Torrington Place campus of University College London. The judges included the University of Reading's cybernetics professor, Kevin Warwick, a professor of artificial intelligence, John Barnden (specialist in metaphor research at the University of Birmingham), a barrister, Victoria Butler-Cole and a journalist, Graham Duncan-Rowe. The latter's experience of the event can be found in an article in Technology Review. The winner was 'Joan', based on Jabberwacky, both created by Rollo Carpenter. === 2007 === The 2007 competition was held on October 21 in New York City. The judges were: computer science professor Russ Abbott, philosophy professor Hartry Field, psychology assistant professor Clayton Curtis and English lecturer Scott Hutchins. No bot passed the Turing test, but the judges ranked the three contestants as follows: 1st: Robert Medeksza, creator of Ultra Hal 2nd: Noah Duncan, a private entry, creator of Cletus 3rd: Rollo Carpenter from Icogno, creator of Jabberwacky The winner received $2,250 and the annual medal. The runners-up received $250 each. === 2008 === The 2008 competition was organised by professor Kevin Warwick, coordinated by Huma Shah and held on October 12 at the University of Reading, UK. After testing by over one hundred judges during the preliminary phase, in June and July 2008, six finalists were selected from thirteen original entrant artificial conversational entities (ACEs). Five of those invited competed in the finals: Brother Jerome, Peter Cole and Benji Adams Elbot, Fred Roberts / Artificial Solutions Eugene Goostman, Vladimir Veselov, Eugene Demchenko and Sergey Ulasen Jabberwacky, Rollo Carpenter Ultra Hal, Robert Medeksza In the finals, each of the judges was given five minutes to conduct simultaneous, split-screen conversations with two hidden entities. Elbot of Artificial Solutions won the 2008 Loebner Prize bronze award, for most human-like artificial conversational entity, through fooling three of the twelve judges who interrogated it (in the human-parallel comparisons) into believing it was human. This is coming very close to the 30% traditionally required to consider that a program has actually passed the Turing test. Eugene Goostman and Ultra Hal both deceived one judge each that it was the human. Will Pavia, a journalist for The Times, has written about his experience; a Loebner finals' judge, he was deceived by Elbot and Eugene. Kevin Warwick and Huma Shah have reported on the parallel-paired Turing tests. === 2009 === The 2009 Loebner Prize Competition was held September 6, 2009, at the Brighton Centre, Brighton UK in conjunction with the Interspeech 2009 conference. The prize amount for 2009 was $3,000. Entrants were David Levy, Rollo Carpenter, and Mohan Embar, who finished in that order. The writer Brian Christian participated in the 2009 Loebner Prize Competition as a human confederate, and described his experiences at the competition in his book The Most Human Human. === 2010 === The 2010 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 23 at California State University, Los Angeles. The 2010 competition was the 20th running of the contest. The winner was Bruce Wilcox with Suzette. === 2011 === The 2011 Loebner Prize Competition was held on October 19 at the University of Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom. The prize amount for 2011 was $4,000. The four finalists and their chatterbots were Bruce Wilcox (Rosette), Adeena Mignogna (Zoe), Mohan Embar (Chip Vivant) and Ron Lee (Tutor), who finished in that order. That year there was an addition of a panel of junior judges, namely Georgia-Mae Lindfield, William Dunne, Sam Keat and Kirill Jerdev. The results of the junior contest were markedly different from the main contest, with chatterbots Tutor and Zoe tying for first place and Chip Vivant and Rosette coming in third and fourt
BLOOM (language model)
The BigScience Large Open-science Open-access Multilingual Language Model (BLOOM) is an open-access large language model (LLM) released in 2022. It was created by a volunteer-driven research effort to provide a transparently-created alternative to proprietary AI models. With 176 billion parameters, BLOOM is a transformer-based autoregressive model designed to generate text in 46 natural languages and 13 programming languages. The model is distributed under the project's "Responsible AI License". == Development == BLOOM is the main outcome of the BigScience initiative, a one-year-long research workshop. The project was coordinated by Hugging Face using funding from the French government and involved several hundred volunteer researchers and engineers from academia and the private sector. The model was trained between March and July 2022 on the Jean Zay public supercomputer in France, managed by GENCI and IDRIS (CNRS). Unlike GPT-3, BLOOM was trained to be multilingual. The source code is released under the Apache 2.0 license. The model's parameters are released under BigScience's "Responsible AI License" (RAIL), which grants open access and reuse rights but with some usage restrictions. BLOOM was used in the chatbots BLOOMChat and HuggingChat due to its multilingual abilities. BLOOM's training corpus, named ROOTS, combines data extracted from the then-latest version of the web-based OSCAR corpus (38% of ROOTS) and newly collected data extracted from a manually selected and documented list of language data sources. In total, the model was trained on approximately 366 billion (1.6TB) tokens. It was developed using the open-source libraries DeepSpeed Megatron. BigScience then released xP3, a multilingual dataset for LLM supervised learning. It also released BLOOMZ, a variant of BLOOM fine-tuned on xP3 to follow instructions.
Generative design
Generative design is an iterative design process that uses software to generate outputs that fulfill a set of constraints iteratively adjusted by a designer. Whether a human, test program, or artificial intelligence, the designer algorithmically or manually refines the feasible region of the program's inputs and outputs with each iteration to fulfill evolving design requirements. By employing computing power to evaluate more design permutations than a human alone is capable of, the process is capable of producing an optimal design that mimics nature's evolutionary approach to design through genetic variation and selection. The output can be images, sounds, architectural models, animation, and much more. It is, therefore, a fast method of exploring design possibilities that is used in various design fields such as art, architecture, communication design, and product design. Generative design has become more important, largely due to new programming environments or scripting capabilities that have made it relatively easy, even for designers with little programming experience, to implement their ideas. Additionally, this process can create solutions to substantially complex problems that would otherwise be resource-exhaustive with an alternative approach, making it a more attractive option for problems with a large or unknown solution set. It is also facilitated with tools in commercially available CAD packages. Not only are implementation tools more accessible, but also tools leveraging generative design as a foundation. Recent advancements have led to the development of Deep Generative Design, a framework that integrates topology optimization with deep learning models, such as Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs). Unlike traditional evolutionary methods that primarily focus on engineering performance, this approach uses deep generative models to enhance aesthetic diversity and novelty while simultaneously satisfying engineering constraints. For instance, research by Oh et al. (2019) proposed a framework using Boundary Equilibrium GANs (BEGAN) to generate diverse design options which are then refined through density-based topology optimization, allowing for the exploration of complex design spaces that balance structural integrity with visual variation. In practice, generative design does not solely aim to produce a single optimal solution, but involves iteratively refining the design problem by modifying parameters, constraints, and evaluation criteria within a computational model, resulting in multiple design alternatives from which the designer selects. == Use in architecture == Generative design in architecture is an iterative design process that enables architects to explore a wider solution space with more possibility and creativity. Architectural design has long been regarded as a wicked problem. Compared with traditional top-down design approach, generative design can address design problems efficiently, by using a bottom-up paradigm that uses parametric-defined rules to generate complex solutions. The solution itself then evolves to a good, if not optimal, solution. The advantage of using generative design as a design tool is that it does not construct fixed geometries, but take a set of design rules that can generate an infinite set of possible design solutions. The generated design solutions can be more sensitive, responsive, and adaptive to the problem. Generative design involves rule definition and result analysis that are integrated with the design process. By defining parameters and rules, the generative approach is able to provide optimized solution for both structural stability and aesthetics. Possible design algorithms include cellular automata, shape grammar, genetic algorithm, space syntax, and most recently, artificial neural network. Due to the high complexity of the solution generated, rule-based computational tools, such as finite element method and topology optimisation, are preferred to evaluate and optimise the generated solution. The iterative process provided by computer software enables the trial-and-error approach in design, and involves architects interfering with the optimisation process. Historically precedent work includes Antoni Gaudí's Sagrada Família, which used rule based geometrical forms for structures, and Buckminster Fuller's Montreal Biosphere where the rules were designed to generate individual components, rather than the final product. More recent generative-design cases include Foster and Partners' Queen Elizabeth II Great Court, where the tessellated glass roof was designed using a geometric schema to define hierarchical relationships, and then the generated solution was optimized based on geometrical and structural requirements. == Use in sustainable design == Generative design in sustainable design is an effective approach addressing energy efficiency and climate change at the early design stage, recognizing buildings contribute to approximately one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and 30%-40% of total building energy use. It integrates environmental principles with algorithms, enabling exploration of countless design alternatives to enhance energy performance, reduce carbon footprints, and minimize waste. A key feature of generative design in sustainable design is its ability to incorporate Building Performance Simulations (BPS) into the design process. Simulation programs such as EnergyPlus, Ladybug Tools,, and so on, combined with generative algorithms, can optimize design solutions for cost-effective energy use and zero-carbon building designs. For example, the GENE_ARCH system used a Pareto algorithm with building energy simulation for the whole building design optimization. Generative design has improved sustainable facade design, as illustrated by the algorithm of cellular automata and daylight simulations in adaptive facade design. In addition, genetic algorithms were used with radiation simulations for energy-efficient photo-voltaic (PV) modules on high-rise building facades. Generative design is also applied to life cycle analysis (LCA), as demonstrated by a framework using grid search algorithms to optimize exterior wall design for minimum environmental impact. Multi-objective optimization embraces multiple diverse sustainability goals, such as interactive kinetic louvers using biomimicry and daylight simulations to enhance daylight, visual comfort, and energy efficiency. The study of PV and shading systems can maximize on-site electricity, improve visual quality, and daylight performance. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) further improve computation efficiency in complex climate-responsive sustainable design. One study employed reinforcement learning to identify the relationship between design parameters and energy use for a sustainable campus, while other studies tried hybrid algorithms, such as using the genetic algorithm and GANs to balance daylight illumination and thermal comfort under different roof conditions. Other popular AI tools were also integrated, including deep reinforcement learning (DRL) and computer vision (CV), to generate an urban block according to direct sunlight hours and solar heat gains. These AI-driven generative design methods enable faster simulations and design decision making, resulting in designs that are environmentally responsible. == Use in additive manufacturing == Additive manufacturing (AM) is a process that creates physical models directly from three-dimensional (3D) data by joining materials layer by layer. It is used in industries to produce a variety of end-use parts, which are final components designed for direct application in products or systems. AM provides design flexibility and enables material reduction in lightweight applications, such as aerospace, automotive, medical, and portable electronic devices, where minimizing weight is critical for performance. Generative design, one of the four key methods for lightweight design in AM, is commonly applied to optimize structures for specific performance requirements. Generative design can help create optimized solutions that balance multiple objectives, such as enhancing performance while minimizing cost. In design for additive manufacturing (DfAM), multi-objective topology optimization is used to generate a set of candidate solutions. Designers then assess these options using their expertise and key performance indicators (KPIs) to select the best option for implementation. However, integrating AM constraints (e.g., speed of build, materials, build envelope, and accuracy) into generative design remains challenging, as ensuring all solutions are valid is complex. Balancing multiple design objectives while limiting computational costs adds further challenges for designers. To overcome these difficulties, researchers proposed a generative design method with manufacturing validation to improve decision-making efficiency. This method starts with a cons
Global serializability
In concurrency control of databases, transaction processing (transaction management), and other transactional distributed applications, global serializability (or modular serializability) is a property of a global schedule of transactions. A global schedule is the unified schedule of all the individual database (and other transactional object) schedules in a multidatabase environment (e.g., federated database). Complying with global serializability means that the global schedule is serializable, has the serializability property, while each component database (module) has a serializable schedule as well. In other words, a collection of serializable components provides overall system serializability, which is usually incorrect. A need in correctness across databases in multidatabase systems makes global serializability a major goal for global concurrency control (or modular concurrency control). With the proliferation of the Internet, Cloud computing, Grid computing, and small, portable, powerful computing devices (e.g., smartphones), as well as increase in systems management sophistication, the need for atomic distributed transactions and thus effective global serializability techniques, to ensure correctness in and among distributed transactional applications, seems to increase. In a federated database system or any other more loosely defined multidatabase system, which are typically distributed in a communication network, transactions span multiple (and possibly distributed) databases. Enforcing global serializability in such system, where different databases may use different types of concurrency control, is problematic. Even if every local schedule of a single database is serializable, the global schedule of a whole system is not necessarily serializable. The massive communication exchanges of conflict information needed between databases to reach conflict serializability globally would lead to unacceptable performance, primarily due to computer and communication latency. Achieving global serializability effectively over different types of concurrency control has been open for several years. == The global serializability problem == === Problem statement === The difficulties described above translate into the following problem: Find an efficient (high-performance and fault tolerant) method to enforce Global serializability (global conflict serializability) in a heterogeneous distributed environment of multiple autonomous database systems. The database systems may employ different concurrency control methods. No limitation should be imposed on the operations of either local transactions (confined to a single database system) or global transactions (span two or more database systems). === Quotations === Lack of an appropriate solution for the global serializability problem has driven researchers to look for alternatives to serializability as a correctness criterion in a multidatabase environment (e.g., see Relaxing global serializability below), and the problem has been characterized as difficult and open. The following two quotations demonstrate the mindset about it by the end of the year 1991, with similar quotations in numerous other articles: "Without knowledge about local as well as global transactions, it is highly unlikely that efficient global concurrency control can be provided... Additional complications occur when different component DBMSs [Database Management Systems] and the FDBMSs [Federated Database Management Systems] support different concurrency mechanisms... It is unlikely that a theoretically elegant solution that provides conflict serializability without sacrificing performance (i.e., concurrency and/or response time) and availability exists." === Proposed solutions === Several solutions, some partial, have been proposed for the global serializability problem. Among them: Global conflict graph (serializability graph, precedence graph) checking Distributed Two-phase locking (Distributed 2PL) Distributed Timestamp ordering Tickets (local logical timestamps which define local total orders, and are propagated to determine global partial order of transactions) == Relaxing global serializability == Some techniques have been developed for relaxed global serializability (i.e., they do not guarantee global serializability; see also Relaxing serializability). Among them (with several publications each): Quasi serializability Two-level serializability Another common reason nowadays for Global serializability relaxation is the requirement of availability of internet products and services. This requirement is typically answered by large scale data replication. The straightforward solution for synchronizing replicas' updates of a same database object is including all these updates in a single atomic distributed transaction. However, with many replicas such a transaction is very large, and may span several computers and networks that some of them are likely to be unavailable. Thus such a transaction is likely to end with abort and miss its purpose. Consequently, Optimistic replication (Lazy replication) is often utilized (e.g., in many products and services by Google, Amazon, Yahoo, and alike), while global serializability is relaxed and compromised for eventual consistency. In this case relaxation is done only for applications that are not expected to be harmed by it. Classes of schedules defined by relaxed global serializability properties either contain the global serializability class, or are incomparable with it. What differentiates techniques for relaxed global conflict serializability (RGCSR) properties from those of relaxed conflict serializability (RCSR) properties that are not RGCSR is typically the different way global cycles (span two or more databases) in the global conflict graph are handled. No distinction between global and local cycles exists for RCSR properties that are not RGCSR. RCSR contains RGCSR. Typically RGCSR techniques eliminate local cycles, i.e., provide local serializability (which can be achieved effectively by regular, known concurrency control methods); however, obviously they do not eliminate all global cycles (which would achieve global serializability).
ParkMobile
ParkMobile is a mobile and web app providing parking payments in North America. Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, users can pay for on-street and off-street parking via app on their smartphone, web browser, or through calling a phone number. ParkMobile also offers parking reservations at stadiums or venues for concerts and sporting events, and in metro area garages. == History == ParkMobile was founded in the United States in 2008 by Albert Bogaard after originally starting in the Netherlands. The initial product served only zone (on-demand) parkers and payment for the parking spot was made via a phone call through an IVR system. In 2009, the ParkMobile app was released and the product launched in its first city, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Parking payments have since been accepted through a user's account by connecting a credit card. ParkMobile deployed in Washington, D.C., in 2011. As of 2023, ParkMobile now has over 50 million users. Parking reservations were introduced in 2017, allowing users to reserve parking in advance. In 2018, the company recapitalized with BMW as the shareholder. ParkMobile was then acquired by a joint venture with BMW and Daimler. Under this joint venture, ParkMobile parking payment functionality was available and integrated with BMW's navigation system in many of its 2018 models. EasyPark Group, the Swedish-based parking solutions company, acquired ParkMobile in 2021 and is the current owner rebranded as Arrive. In 2022, ParkMobile launched in the City of Boston with a city-wide parking app, ParkBoston, powered by ParkMobile. == Operations == === Products === ParkMobile's product offerings include zone (on-demand) parking payments, parking reservations, and a self-service reporting engine. Zone parking is the company's most widely used service. Users can use the app on their smartphone to pay parking fees. In 2017, ParkMobile began offering parking reservations. The service is provided in addition to on-demand parking options at stadiums and venues, as well as metro area parking garages. After launching the reservations feature, ParkMobile became the first mobile parking app provider in North America to have a consolidated app with both on-demand and reservations parking in one. ParkMobile 360, the company's self-service management and reporting platform for operators, launched in 2018. It is a web-based application for parking operators to manage parking inventory, adjust rates, create special parking events, and track analytics. In 2020, ParkMobile began offering an option to pay for parking with Google through integrating the ParkMobile experience with Google Maps In 2021, ParkMobile launched its web application, allowing users to complete their parking transactions directly from the mobile website without having to download the app or have an account. ParkMobile integrates with parking gate equipment so customers can use their app to pay for parking and scan to enter and exit the garage. === Locations === ParkMobile has over 50 million users across the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. The app is available in over 550 cities in the U.S. and over 150 colleges and universities. == Controversies == === Predatory towing and excessive ticketing === Since all paid parking sessions from a single supplier are able to be viewed together, the ease of viewing and enforcing parking violations has caused controversy. Parking Enforcement Services in Birmingham, Alabama, has been the subject complaints by users of the ParkMobile app who had paid for a parking session and still had their vehicle towed. Customers often use old or expired license plates and forget to update to the correct number, or mistype when entering their information into the ParkMobile app. The complaints are that the towing companies offer no lenience for these mistakes. They return to their car as the session expires, and find their car has been towed. Additionally, other municipality across the country have received complaints about excessive parking ticket issuing when inputting their information incorrectly in the ParkMobile app. In Stone Harbor, New Jersey, parking ticket violations increased by over 1,600% from the previous year since launching with the ParkMobile app. Police officers refute complaints of being "too strict" on writing tickets by admitting the ParkMobile system allows officers to "more seamlessly enforce" the city's parking laws. === Data security breach === In March 2021, ParkMobile suffered a cybersecurity incident "linked to a vulnerability in a third-party software," potentially exposing users' email addresses, phone numbers, and license plate numbers. ParkMobile responded by launching an investigation and notifying law enforcement authorities and affected municipalities. The investigation concluded "no sensitive data or Payment Card Information was affected" but ParkMobile confirmed that basic account information, such as license plate numbers and possibly email addresses or phone numbers, was accessed.
Shape table
Shape tables are a feature of the Apple II ROMs which allows for manipulation of small images encoded as a series of vectors. An image (or shape) can be drawn in the high-resolution graphics mode—with scaling and rotation—via software routines in the ROM. Shape tables are supported via Applesoft BASIC and from machine code in the "Programmer's Aid" package that was bundled with the original Integer BASIC ROMs for that computer. Applesoft's high-resolution graphics routines were not optimized for speed, so shape tables were not typically used for performance-critical software such as games, which were typically written in assembly language and used pre-shifted bitmap shapes. Shape tables were used primarily for static shapes and sometimes for fancy text; Beagle Bros offered a number of fonts in Font Mechanic as Applesoft shape tables. == Technical details == The vectors of a two-dimensional graphic, each encoding a direction from the previous pixel along with a flag indicating whether the new pixel should be illuminated or not, were encoded up to three in a byte. These were stored in a table via the Monitor or the POKE command. From there, the graphic could be referenced by number (a table could contain up to 255 shapes), and built-in Applesoft routines permitted scaling, rotating, and drawing or erasing the shape. An XOR mode was also available to allow the shape to be visible on any color background; this had the advantage, also, of allowing the shape to be easily erased by redrawing it. Apple did not provide any utilities for creating shape tables; they had to be created by hand, usually by plotting on graph paper, then calculating the hexadecimal values and entering them into the computer. Beagle Bros created a shape table editing program, which eliminated the "number crunching", called Apple Mechanic, and a related program, Font Mechanic.
Imo.im
imo.im is a proprietary audio/video calling and instant messaging software service. It allows sending music, video, PDFs and other files, along with various free stickers. It supports encrypted group video and voice calls with up to 20 participants. According to its developer, the service possesses over 200 million users and over 50 million messages per day are sent through it. == History == The product was created as a web-based application in 2005 for accessing multiple chat platforms, including Facebook Messenger, Google Talk, Yahoo! Messenger, and Skype chat. It was developed by Pagebites, which is a subsidiary of Singularity IM, Inc. and required a subscriber's phone number to verify the users' account. In March 2014, support for all third-party messaging networks ended. In January 2018, the app reached 500 million installs. imo.im has implemented end-to-end encryption for its chats and calls, ensuring that the conversations remain private between the sender and receiver.