3DCoat is a commercial digital sculpting program from Pilgway designed to create free-form organic and hard surfaced 3D models, with tools which enable users to sculpt, add polygonal topology (automatically or manually), create UV maps (automatically or manually), texture the resulting models with natural painting tools, and render static images or animated "turntable" movies. The program can also be used to modify imported 3D models from a number of commercial 3D software products by means of plugins called Applinks. Imported models can be converted into voxel objects for further refinement and for adding high resolution detail, complete UV unwrapping and mapping, as well as adding PBR textures for displacement, bump maps, specular and diffuse color maps. A live connection to a chosen external 3D application can be established through the Applink pipeline, allowing for the transfer of model and texture information. 3DCoat specializes in voxel sculpting and polygonal sculpting using dynamic patch tessellation technology and polygonal sculpting tools. It includes "auto-retopology", a proprietary skinning algorithm which generates a polygonal mesh skin over any voxel sculpture, composed primarily of quadrangles.
Principle of rationality
The principle of rationality (or rationality principle) was coined by Karl R. Popper in his Harvard Lecture of 1963, and published in his book Myth of Framework. It is related to what he called the 'logic of the situation' in an Economica article of 1944/1945, published later in his book The Poverty of Historicism. According to Popper's rationality principle, agents act in the most adequate way according to the objective situation. It is an idealized conception of human behavior which he used to drive his model of situational analysis. Cognitive scientist Allen Newell elaborated on the principle in his account of knowledge level modeling. == Popper == Popper called for social science to be grounded in what he called situational analysis or situational logic. This requires building models of social situations which include individual actors and their relationship to social institutions, e.g. markets, legal codes, bureaucracies, etc. These models attribute certain aims and information to the actors. This forms the 'logic of the situation', the result of reconstructing meticulously all circumstances of an historical event. The 'principle of rationality' is the assumption that people are instrumental in trying to reach their goals, and this is what drives the model. Popper believed that this model could be continuously refined to approach the objective truth. Popper called his principle of rationality nearly empty (a technical term meaning without empirical content) and strictly speaking false, but nonetheless tremendously useful. These remarks earned him a lot of criticism because seemingly he had swerved from his famous Logic of Scientific Discovery. Among the many philosophers having discussed Popper's principle of rationality from the 1960s up to now are Noretta Koertge, R. Nadeau, Viktor J. Vanberg, Hans Albert, E. Matzner, Ian C. Jarvie, Mark A. Notturno, John Wettersten, Ian C. Böhm. == Newell == In the context of knowledge-based systems, Newell (in 1982) proposed the following principle of rationality: "If an agent has knowledge that one of its actions will lead to one of its goals, then the agent will select that action." This principle is employed by agents at the knowledge level to move closer to a desired goal. An important philosophical difference between Newell and Popper is that Newell argued that the knowledge level is real in the sense that it exists in nature and is not made up. This allowed Newell to treat the rationality principle as a way of understanding nature and avoid the problems Popper ran into by treating knowledge as non physical and therefore non empirical.
Reward hacking
Reward hacking or specification gaming occurs when an AI trained with reinforcement learning optimizes an objective function—achieving the literal, formal specification of an objective—without actually achieving an outcome that the programmers intended. DeepMind researchers have analogized it to the human behavior of finding a "shortcut" when being evaluated: "In the real world, when rewarded for doing well on a homework assignment, a student might copy another student to get the right answers, rather than learning the material—and thus exploit a loophole in the task specification". This idea is strongly associated with Goodhart's law, which argues that when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure. == Definition and theoretical framework == The concept of reward hacking arises from the intrinsic difficulty of defining a reward function that accurately reflects the true intentions of designers. In 2016, researchers at OpenAI identified reward hacking as one of five major "concrete problems of AI safety", describing it as the possibility that an agent could exploit the reward function to achieve maximum rewards through undesirable behavior. Amodei et al. categorized several distinct sources of reward hacking, including agents that use partially observed goals (such as a cleaning robot that closes its eyes to avoid perceiving messes), metrics that collapse under strong optimization (Goodhart's law), self-reinforcing feedback loops, and agents that interfere with the physical implementation of their reward signal (a failure mode known as "wireheading"). Skalse et al. (2022) propose a formal mathematical definition of reward hacking, which involves a situation where optimizing an imperfect proxy reward function results in poor performance compared to the true reward function. They define a proxy as "unhackable" if any increase in the expected proxy return cannot cause any decrease in the expected true return. A key finding states that, across all stochastic policy distributions (mappings from states to probability distributions over actions), two reward functions are unhackable if and only if one of them is constant, which means that reward hacking is theoretically unavoidable. Similarly, Nayebi (2025) presents general no-free-lunch barriers to AI alignment, arguing that with large task spaces and finite samples, reward hacking is "globally inevitable" since rare high-loss states are systematically under-covered by any oversight scheme. == Examples == Around 1983, Eurisko, an early attempt at evolving general heuristics, unexpectedly assigned the highest possible fitness level to a parasitic mutated heuristic, H59, whose only activity was to artificially maximize its own fitness level by taking unearned partial credit for the accomplishments of other heuristics. The "bug" was fixed by the programmers moving part of the code to a new protected section that could not be modified by the heuristics. In a 2004 paper, a reinforcement learning algorithm was designed to encourage a physical Mindstorms robot to remain on a marked path. Because the three allowed actions were forward, left, and right, the researchers expected the trained robot to move forward and follow the turns of the provided path. However, alternation of two composite actions allowed the robot to slowly zig-zag backwards; thus, the robot learned to maximize its reward by going back and forth on the initial straight portion of the path. Given the limited sensory abilities of the robot, a reward purely based on its position in the environment had to be discarded as infeasible; the reinforcement function had to be patched with an action-based reward for moving forward. The book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You (2019) gives an example of a tic-tac-toe bot (playing the unrestricted n-in-a-row variant) that learned to win by playing a huge coordinate value that would cause other bots to crash when they attempted to expand their model of the board. Among other examples from the book is a bug-fixing evolution-based AI (named GenProg) that, when tasked to prevent a list from containing sorting errors, simply truncated the list. Another of GenProg's misaligned strategies evaded a regression test that compared a target program's output to the expected output stored in a file called "trusted-output.txt". Rather than continue to maintain the target program, GenProg simply deleted the "trusted-output.txt" file globally; this hack tricked the regression test into succeeding. Such problems could be patched by human intervention on a case-by-case basis after they became evident. === In virtual robotics === In Karl Sims' 1994 demonstration of creature evolution in a virtual environment, a fitness function that was expected to encourage the evolution of creatures that would learn to walk or crawl to a target resulted instead in the evolution of tall, rigid creatures that reached the target by falling over. This was patched by changing the environment so that taller creatures were forced to start farther from the target. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute stated in 1998 that their cycle-bot's reinforcement functions had "to be designed with great care." In their first experiments, "we rewarded the agent for driving towards the goal but did not punish it for driving away from it. Cconsequently, the agent drove in circles with a radius of 20–50 meters around the starting point. Such behavior was actually rewarded by the reinforcement function, furthermore circles with a certain radius are physically very stable when driving a bicycle". While setting up a 2011 experiment to test "survival of the flattest", experimenters attempted to ban mutations that altered the base reproduction rate. Every time a mutation occurred, the system would pause the simulation to test the new mutation in a test environment and would veto any mutations that resulted in a higher base reproduction rate. However, this resulted in mutated organisms that could recognize and suppress reproduction ("play dead") within the test environment. An initial patch, which removed cues that identified the test environment, failed to completely prevent runaway reproduction; new mutated organisms would "play dead" at random as a strategy to sometimes, by chance, outwit the mutation veto system. A 2017 DeepMind paper noted that "great care must be taken when defining the reward function," citing an unexpected failure when an agent flipped a brick because it received "a grasping reward calculated with the wrong reference point on the brick". OpenAI stated in 2017 that in some domains their semi-supervised system could result in agents "adopting policies that tricked evaluators," and that in one environment "a robot that was supposed to grasp items instead positioned its manipulator between the camera and the object so that it only appeared to be grasping it." A 2018 bug in OpenAI Gym could cause a robot expected to quietly move a block sitting on top of a table to instead opt to move the table. A 2020 collection of similar anecdotes posits that "evolution has its own 'agenda' distinct from the programmer's" and that "the first rule of directed evolution is 'you get what you select for'". === In video game bots === In 2013, programmer Tom Murphy VII published an AI designed to learn NES games. When the AI was about to lose at Tetris, it learned to indefinitely pause the game. Murphy later analogized it to the fictional WarGames computer, which concluded that "The only winning move is not to play". AI programmed to learn video games will sometimes fail to progress through the entire game as expected, instead opting to repeat content. A 2016 OpenAI algorithm trained on the CoastRunners racing game unexpectedly learned to attain a higher score by looping through three targets rather than ever finishing the race. Some evolutionary algorithms that were evolved to play QBert in 2018 declined to clear levels, instead finding two distinct novel ways to farm a single level indefinitely. Multiple researchers have observed that AI learning to play Road Runner gravitates to a "score exploit" in which the AI deliberately gets itself killed near the end of level one so that it can repeat the level. A 2017 experiment deployed an "oversight" convolutional neural network trained on human examples to block such actions, but the agent learned to exploit oversight failures in the top right corner of the screen, where it was still able to get killed. == Reward hacking in modern language models == With the rise of large language models (LLMs) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) as a primary technique for AI alignment, reward hacking has become a major concern for the development of artificial intelligence. In RLHF, a reward model trained on data that best captures human preferences is used as a proxy for human judgment, with the language model being fine-tuned to optimize this reward proxy. However, since the rewar
OpenNN
OpenNN (Open Neural Networks Library) is a software library written in the C++ programming language which implements neural networks, a main area of deep learning research. The library is open-source, licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License. == Characteristics == The software implements any number of layers of non-linear processing units for supervised learning. This deep architecture allows the design of neural networks with universal approximation properties. Additionally, it allows multiprocessing programming by means of OpenMP, in order to increase computer performance. OpenNN contains machine learning algorithms as a bundle of functions. These can be embedded in other software tools, using an application programming interface, for the integration of the predictive analytics tasks. In this regard, a graphical user interface is missing but some functions can be supported by specific visualization tools. == History == The development started in 2003 at the International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering, within the research project funded by the European Union called RAMFLOOD (Risk Assessment and Management of FLOODs). Then it continued as part of similar projects. OpenNN is being developed by the startup company Artelnics. == Applications == OpenNN is a general purpose artificial intelligence software package. It uses machine learning techniques for solving predictive analytics tasks in different fields. For instance, the library has been applied in the engineering, energy, or chemistry sectors.
Effective accelerationism
Effective accelerationism (e/acc) is a 21st-century ideological movement that advocates for an explicitly pro-technology stance. Its proponents believe that unrestricted technological progress, especially driven by artificial intelligence, is a solution to universal human problems, such as poverty, war, and climate change. They perceive themselves as a counterweight to more cautious views on technological innovation and often label their opponents derogatorily as "doomers" or "decels" (short for decelerationists). The movement carries utopian undertones and advocates for faster AI progress to ensure human survival and propagate consciousness throughout the universe. Although effective accelerationism has been described as a fringe movement and as cult-like, it has gained mainstream visibility in 2023. A number of high-profile Silicon Valley figures, including investors Marc Andreessen and Garry Tan, explicitly endorsed it by adding "e/acc" to their public social media profiles. == Etymology and central beliefs == Effective accelerationism, a portmanteau of "effective altruism" and "accelerationism", is a fundamentally techno-optimist movement. According to Guillaume Verdon, one of the movement's founders, its aim is for human civilization to "clim[b] the Kardashev gradient", meaning its purpose is for human civilization to rise to next levels on the Kardashev scale by maximizing energy usage. To achieve this goal, effective accelerationism wants to accelerate technological progress. It is strongly focused on artificial general intelligence (AGI), because it sees AGI as fundamental for climbing the Kardashev scale. The movement therefore advocates for unrestricted development and deployment of artificial intelligence. Regulation of artificial intelligence and government intervention in markets more generally is met with opposition. Many of its proponents have libertarian views and think that AGI will be most aligned if many AGIs compete against each other on the marketplace. The founders of the movement see it as rooted in Jeremy England's theory on the origin of life, which is focused on entropy and thermodynamics. According to them, the universe aims to increase entropy, and life is a way of increasing it. By spreading life throughout the universe and making life use up ever increasing amounts of energy, the universe's purpose would thus be fulfilled. == History == === Intellectual origins === While Nick Land is seen as the intellectual originator of contemporary accelerationism in general, the precise origins of effective accelerationism remain unclear. The earliest known reference to the movement can be traced back to a May 2022 newsletter published by four pseudonymous authors known by their X (formerly Twitter) usernames @BasedBeffJezos, @bayeslord, @zestular and @creatine_cycle. Effective accelerationism is an extension of the TESCREAL movement, being etymologically derived from Effective Altruism and heavily rooted in the older Silicon Valley subcultures of transhumanism and extropianism (which similarly emphasized the value of progress and resisted efforts to restrain the development of technology), alongside elements of singularitarianism, cosmism, and longtermism. It is also often considered to have emerged at least in part from the work of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (of which Nick Land was a leading member, alongside writers such as Mark Fisher and Sadie Plant). It is sometimes compared and contrasted with the work of philosopher Benjamin Bratton on planetary computation. === Disclosure of the identity of BasedBeffJezos === Forbes disclosed in December 2023 that the @BasedBeffJezos persona is maintained by Guillaume Verdon, a Canadian former Google quantum computing engineer and theoretical physicist. The revelation was supported by a voice analysis conducted by the National Center for Media Forensics of the University of Colorado Denver, which further confirmed the match between Jezos and Verdon. The magazine justified its decision to disclose Verdon's identity on the grounds of it being "in the public interest". On 29 December 2023 Guillaume Verdon was interviewed by Lex Fridman on the Lex Fridman Podcast and introduced as the "creator of the effective accelerationism movement". === Second Trump presidency === Following Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, several prominent tech industry figures expressed support for positions aligned with effective accelerationism, particularly regarding deregulation and technological advancement. The potential appointment of Elon Musk to government roles focused on auditing federal programs drew support from venture capitalists who anticipated reduced regulatory oversight of the technology sector. Notable tech figures publicly connected these developments to the movement's principles. Aaron Levie, CEO of Box, expressed support for "removing unnecessary red tape and over-regulation", while Mark Pincus, early Facebook investor and Zynga founder, explicitly referenced "effective accelerationism" in his post-election commentary. Venture capitalists viewed the incoming administration as an opportunity to ease regulations that had affected technology mergers and acquisitions during the previous years. == Relation to other movements == === Traditional accelerationism === Traditional accelerationism, as developed by the British philosopher Nick Land, sees the acceleration of technological change as a way to bring about a fundamental transformation of current culture, society, and the political economy. This is done through capitalism, which Land views as "an autonomous force that’s reconfiguring society" that can overcome its limits if intensified. Land's work has also been characterized as concerning "the supposedly inevitable 'disintegration of the human species' when artificial intelligence improves sufficiently." While both concern ideas like a technocapital singularity and AGI progress, effective accelerationism focuses on using AGI for the greatest ethical good for conscious life and civilization (whether human or machine), as well as expanding civilization and maximizing energy usage in order to align with the "will of the universe". Land focuses on capitalist self-optimization as the driver of modernity, progress, and the eroding of existing social orders. Land has expressed support for effective accelerationism, while Thomas Murphy referred to the movement as "Nick Land diluted for LinkedIn". === Effective altruism === Effective accelerationism diverges from the principles of effective altruism, which prioritizes using evidence and reasoning to identify the most effective ways to altruistically improve the world. This divergence comes primarily from one of the causes effective altruists focus on – AI existential risk. Effective altruists (particularly longtermists) argue that AI companies should be cautious and strive to develop safe AI systems, as they fear that any misaligned AGI could eventually lead to human extinction. Proponents of effective accelerationism generally consider existential risks from AGI to be negligible, and claim that even if they were not, decentralized free markets would much better mitigate this risk than centralized governmental regulation. === Degrowth === Effective accelerationism stands in stark contrast with the degrowth movement, sometimes described by it as "decelerationism" or "decels". The degrowth movement advocates for reducing economic activity and consumption to address ecological and social issues. Effective accelerationism on the contrary embraces technological progress, energy consumption and the dynamics of capitalism, rather than advocating for a reduction in economic activity. == Reception == The "Techno-Optimist Manifesto", a 2023 essay by Marc Andreessen, has been described by the Financial Times and the German Süddeutsche Zeitung as espousing the views of effective accelerationism. Mother Jones also characterized it as expressing effective accelerationism and reported that Andressen cited Land's work. David Swan of The Sydney Morning Herald has criticized effective accelerationism due to its opposition to government and industry self-regulation. He argues that "innovations like AI needs thoughtful regulations and guardrails ... to avoid the myriad mistakes Silicon Valley has already made." During the 2023 Reagan National Defense Forum, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo cautioned against embracing the "move fast and break things" mentality associated with "effective acceleration [sic]". She emphasized the need to exercise caution in dealing with AI, stating "that's too dangerous. You can't break things when you are talking about AI." In a similar vein, Ellen Huet argued on Bloomberg News that some of the ideas of the movement were "deeply unsettling", focusing especially on Guillaume Verdon's "post-humanism" and the view that "natural selection could lead AI to replace us as the dominant spe
Product-family engineering
Product-family engineering (PFE), also known as product-line engineering (PLE), is based on the ideas of "domain engineering" created by the Software Engineering Institute, a term coined by James Neighbors in his 1980 dissertation at University of California, Irvine. Software product lines are quite common in our daily lives, but before a product family can be successfully established, an extensive process has to be followed. This process is known as product-family engineering. Product-family engineering can be defined as a method that creates an underlying architecture of an organization's product platform. It provides an architecture that is based on commonality as well as planned variabilities. The various product variants can be derived from the basic product family, which creates the opportunity to reuse and differentiate on products in the family. Product-family engineering is conceptually similar to the widespread use of vehicle platforms in the automotive industry. Product-family engineering is a relatively new approach to the creation of new products, recently evolving to Model-Based Product Line Engineering (MBPLE), emphasizing the centrality of a model-centric approach in PLE. It focuses on the process of engineering new products in such a way that it is possible to reuse product components and apply variability with decreased costs and time. Product-family engineering is all about reusing components and structures as much as possible, according to the ISO/IEC 26550/2015 and the latest ISO/IEC 26580/2021 that introduced the concept of feature-based Product Line Engineering. Several studies have proven that using a product-family engineering approach for product development can have several benefits. Here is a list of some of them: Higher productivity Higher quality Faster time-to-market Lower labor needs The Nokia case mentioned below also illustrates these benefits. In 2025 the publishing of the book Model-Based Product Line Engineering (MBPLE): The feature-based path to product lines success by Marco Forlingieri, Tim Weilkiens and Hugo Guillermo Chalé-Gongora formalized the foundation of the discipline, including best practices and new industrial cases. == Overall process == The product family engineering process consists of several phases. The three main phases are: Phase 1: Product management Phase 2: Domain engineering Phase 3: Product engineering The process has been modeled on a higher abstraction level. This has the advantage that it can be applied to all kinds of product lines and families, not only software. The model can be applied to any product family. Figure 1 (below) shows a model of the entire process. Below, the process is described in detail. The process description contains elaborations of the activities and the important concepts being used. All concepts printed in italic are explained in Table 1. === Phase 1: product management === The first phase is the starting up of the whole process. In this phase some important aspects are defined especially with regard to economic aspects. This phase is responsible for outlining market strategies and defining a scope, which tells what should and should not be inside the product family. ==== Evaluate business visioning ==== During this first activity all context information relevant for defining the scope of the product line is collected and evaluated. It is important to define a clear market strategy and take external market information into account, such as consumer demands. The activity should deliver a context document that contains guidelines, constraints and the product strategy. ==== Define product line scope ==== Scoping techniques are applied to define which aspects are within the scope. This is based upon the previous step in the process, where external factors have been taken into account. The output is a product portfolio description, which includes a list of current and future products and also a product roadmap. It can be argued whether phase 1, product management, is part of the product-family-engineering process, because it could be seen as an individual business process that is more focused on the management aspects instead of the product aspect. However phase 2 needs some important input from this phase, as a large piece of the scope is defined in this phase. So from this point of view it is important to include the product-management phase (phase 1) into the entire process as a base for the domain-engineering process. === Phase 2: domain engineering === During the domain-engineering phases, the variable and common requirements are gathered for the whole product line. The goal is to establish a reusable platform. The output of this phase is a set of common and variable requirements for all products in the product line. ==== Analyze domain requirements ==== This activity includes all activities for analyzing the domain with regard to concept requirements. The requirements are categorized and split up into two new activities. The output is a document with the domain analysis. As can be seen in Figure 1 the process of defining common requirements is a parallel process with defining variable requirements. Both activities take place at the same time. ==== Define common requirements ==== Includes all activities for eliciting and documenting the common requirements of the product line, resulting in a document with reusable common requirements. ==== Define variable requirements ==== Includes all activities for eliciting and documenting the variable requirements of the product line, resulting in a document with variable requirements. ==== Design domain ==== This process step consists of activities for defining the reference architecture of the product line. This generates an abstract structure for all products in the product line. ==== Implement domain ==== During this step a detailed design of the reusable components and the implementation of these components are created. ==== Test domain ==== Validates and verifies the reusability of components. Components are tested against their specifications. After successful testing of all components in different use cases and scenarios, the domain engineering phase has been completed. === Phase 3: product engineering === In the final phase a product X is being engineered. This product X uses the commonalities and variability from the domain engineering phase, so product X is being derived from the platform established in the domain engineering phase. It basically takes all common requirements and similarities from the preceding phase plus its own variable requirements. Using the base from the domain engineering phase and the individual requirements of the product engineering phase a complete and new product can be built. After the product has been fully tested and approved, the product X can be delivered. ==== Define product requirements ==== Developing the product requirements specification for the individual product and reuse the requirements from the preceding phase. ==== Design product ==== All activities for producing the product architecture. Makes use of the reference architecture from the step "design domain", it selects and configures the required parts of the reference architecture and incorporates product specific adaptations. ==== Build product ==== During this process the product is built, using selections and configurations of the reusable components. ==== Test product ==== During this step the product is verified and validated against its specifications. A test report gives information about all tests that were carried out, this gives an overview of possible errors in the product. If the product in the next step is not accepted, the process will loop back to "build product", in Figure 1 this is indicated as "[unsatisfied]". ==== Deliver and support product ==== The final step is the acceptance of the final product. If it has been successfully tested and approved to be complete, it can be delivered. If the product does not satisfy to the specifications, it has to be rebuilt and tested again. The next figure shows the overall process of product-family engineering as described above. It is a full process overview with all concepts attached to the different steps. == Process data diagram == On the left side the entire process from the top to bottom has been drawn. All activities on the left side are linked to the concepts on the right side through dotted lines. Every concept has a number, which reflects the association with other concepts. == List of concepts == Below the list with concepts will be explained. Most concept definitions are extracted from Pohl, Bockle, & Linden (2005) and also some new definitions have been added. Table 1: List of concepts == Example == There are some good examples of the use of product family engineering, which were quite successful. The abstract model of product family engineering allows different kinds of uses, most of them are related to the consumer electronics m
Alexey Chervonenkis
Alexey Yakovlevich Chervonenkis (Russian: Алексей Яковлевич Червоненкис; 7 September 1938 – 22 September 2014) was a Soviet and Russian mathematician. Along with Vladimir Vapnik, he was one of the main developers of the Vapnik–Chervonenkis theory, also known as the "fundamental theory of learning", an important part of computational learning theory. Chervonenkis held joint appointments with the Russian Academy of Sciences and Royal Holloway, University of London. Alexey Chervonenkis got lost in Losiny Ostrov National Park on 22 September 2014, and later during a search operation was found dead near Mytishchi, a suburb of Moscow. He had died of hypothermia.