In mathematics, a tuple is a finite sequence (or ordered list) of numbers. More generally, it is a sequence of mathematical objects, called the elements of the tuple. An n-tuple is a tuple of n elements, where n is a non-negative integer. There is only one 0-tuple, called the empty tuple. A 1-tuple and a 2-tuple are commonly called a singleton and an ordered pair, respectively. The term "infinite tuple" is occasionally used for "infinite sequences". Tuples are usually written by listing the elements within parentheses "( )" and separated by commas; for example, (2, 7, 4, 1, 7) denotes a 5-tuple. Other types of brackets are sometimes used, although they may have a different meaning. An n-tuple can be formally defined as the image of a function that has the set of the first n natural numbers as its domain (1, 2, ..., n). Tuples may be also defined from ordered pairs by a recurrence starting from an ordered pair; indeed, an n-tuple can be identified with the ordered pair of its (n − 1) first elements and its nth element, for example, ( ( ( 1 , 2 ) , 3 ) , 4 ) = ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) {\displaystyle \left(\left(\left(1,2\right),3\right),4\right)=\left(1,2,3,4\right)} . In computer science, tuples come in many forms. Most typed functional programming languages implement tuples directly as product types, tightly associated with algebraic data types, pattern matching, and destructuring assignment. Many programming languages offer an alternative to tuples, known as record types, featuring unordered elements accessed by label. A few programming languages combine ordered tuple product types and unordered record types into a single construct, as in C structs and Haskell records. Relational databases may formally identify their rows (records) as tuples. Tuples also occur in relational algebra; when programming the semantic web with the Resource Description Framework (RDF); in linguistics; and in philosophy. == Etymology == The term originated as an abstraction of the sequence: single, couple/double, triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple, septuple, octuple, ..., n‑tuple, ..., where the prefixes are taken from the Latin names of the numerals. The unique 0-tuple is called the null tuple or empty tuple. A 1‑tuple is called a single (or singleton), a 2‑tuple is called an ordered pair or couple, and a 3‑tuple is called a triple (or triplet). The number n can be any nonnegative integer. For example, a complex number can be represented as a 2‑tuple of reals, a quaternion can be represented as a 4‑tuple, an octonion can be represented as an 8‑tuple, and a sedenion can be represented as a 16‑tuple. Although these uses treat ‑tuple as the suffix, the original suffix was ‑ple as in "triple" (three-fold) or "decuple" (ten‑fold). This originates from medieval Latin plus (meaning "more") related to Greek ‑πλοῦς, which replaced the classical and late antique ‑plex (meaning "folded"), as in "duplex". == Properties == The general rule for the identity of two n-tuples is ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n ) = ( b 1 , b 2 , … , b n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{n})=(b_{1},b_{2},\ldots ,b_{n})} if and only if a 1 = b 1 , a 2 = b 2 , … , a n = b n {\displaystyle a_{1}=b_{1},{\text{ }}a_{2}=b_{2},{\text{ }}\ldots ,{\text{ }}a_{n}=b_{n}} . Thus a tuple has properties that distinguish it from a set: A tuple may contain multiple instances of the same element, so tuple ( 1 , 2 , 2 , 3 ) ≠ ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) {\displaystyle (1,2,2,3)\neq (1,2,3)} ; but set { 1 , 2 , 2 , 3 } = { 1 , 2 , 3 } {\displaystyle \{1,2,2,3\}=\{1,2,3\}} . Tuple elements are ordered: tuple ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) ≠ ( 3 , 2 , 1 ) {\displaystyle (1,2,3)\neq (3,2,1)} , but set { 1 , 2 , 3 } = { 3 , 2 , 1 } {\displaystyle \{1,2,3\}=\{3,2,1\}} . A tuple has a finite number of elements, while a set or a multiset may have an infinite number of elements. == Definitions == There are several definitions of tuples that give them the properties described in the previous section. === Tuples as functions === The 0 {\displaystyle 0} -tuple may be identified as the empty function. For n ≥ 1 , {\displaystyle n\geq 1,} the n {\displaystyle n} -tuple ( a 1 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle \left(a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\right)} may be identified with the surjective function F : { 1 , … , n } → { a 1 , … , a n } {\displaystyle F~:~\left\{1,\ldots ,n\right\}~\to ~\left\{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\right\}} with domain domain F = { 1 , … , n } = { i ∈ N : 1 ≤ i ≤ n } {\displaystyle \operatorname {domain} F=\left\{1,\ldots ,n\right\}=\left\{i\in \mathbb {N} :1\leq i\leq n\right\}} and with codomain codomain F = { a 1 , … , a n } , {\displaystyle \operatorname {codomain} F=\left\{a_{1},\ldots ,a_{n}\right\},} that is defined at i ∈ domain F = { 1 , … , n } {\displaystyle i\in \operatorname {domain} F=\left\{1,\ldots ,n\right\}} by F ( i ) := a i . {\displaystyle F(i):=a_{i}.} That is, F {\displaystyle F} is the function defined by 1 ↦ a 1 ⋮ n ↦ a n {\displaystyle {\begin{alignedat}{3}1\;&\mapsto &&\;a_{1}\\\;&\;\;\vdots &&\;\\n\;&\mapsto &&\;a_{n}\\\end{alignedat}}} in which case the equality ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n ) = ( F ( 1 ) , F ( 2 ) , … , F ( n ) ) {\displaystyle \left(a_{1},a_{2},\dots ,a_{n}\right)=\left(F(1),F(2),\dots ,F(n)\right)} necessarily holds. Tuples as sets of ordered pairs Functions are commonly identified with their graphs, which is a certain set of ordered pairs. Indeed, many authors use graphs as the definition of a function. Using this definition of "function", the above function F {\displaystyle F} can be defined as: F := { ( 1 , a 1 ) , … , ( n , a n ) } . {\displaystyle F~:=~\left\{\left(1,a_{1}\right),\ldots ,\left(n,a_{n}\right)\right\}.} === Tuples as nested ordered pairs === Another way of modeling tuples in set theory is as nested ordered pairs. This approach assumes that the notion of ordered pair has already been defined. The 0-tuple (i.e. the empty tuple) is represented by the empty set ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } . An n-tuple, with n > 0, can be defined as an ordered pair of its first entry and an (n − 1)-tuple (which contains the remaining entries when n > 1): ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( a 1 , ( a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=(a_{1},(a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n}))} This definition can be applied recursively to the (n − 1)-tuple: ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( a 1 , ( a 2 , ( a 3 , ( … , ( a n , ∅ ) … ) ) ) ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=(a_{1},(a_{2},(a_{3},(\ldots ,(a_{n},\emptyset )\ldots ))))} Thus, for example: ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) = ( 1 , ( 2 , ( 3 , ∅ ) ) ) ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) = ( 1 , ( 2 , ( 3 , ( 4 , ∅ ) ) ) ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(1,2,3)&=(1,(2,(3,\emptyset )))\\(1,2,3,4)&=(1,(2,(3,(4,\emptyset ))))\\\end{aligned}}} A variant of this definition starts "peeling off" elements from the other end: The 0-tuple is the empty set ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } . For n > 0: ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n − 1 ) , a n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=((a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n-1}),a_{n})} This definition can be applied recursively: ( a 1 , a 2 , a 3 , … , a n ) = ( ( … ( ( ( ∅ , a 1 ) , a 2 ) , a 3 ) , … ) , a n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},a_{3},\ldots ,a_{n})=((\ldots (((\emptyset ,a_{1}),a_{2}),a_{3}),\ldots ),a_{n})} Thus, for example: ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) = ( ( ( ∅ , 1 ) , 2 ) , 3 ) ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) = ( ( ( ( ∅ , 1 ) , 2 ) , 3 ) , 4 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}(1,2,3)&=(((\emptyset ,1),2),3)\\(1,2,3,4)&=((((\emptyset ,1),2),3),4)\\\end{aligned}}} === Tuples as nested sets === Using Kuratowski's representation for an ordered pair, the second definition above can be reformulated in terms of pure set theory: The 0-tuple (i.e. the empty tuple) is represented by the empty set ∅ {\displaystyle \emptyset } ; Let x {\displaystyle x} be an n-tuple ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n ) {\displaystyle (a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{n})} , and let x → b ≡ ( a 1 , a 2 , … , a n , b ) {\displaystyle x\rightarrow b\equiv (a_{1},a_{2},\ldots ,a_{n},b)} . Then, x → b ≡ { { x } , { x , b } } {\displaystyle x\rightarrow b\equiv \{\{x\},\{x,b\}\}} . (The right arrow, → {\displaystyle \rightarrow } , could be read as "adjoined with".) In this formulation: ( ) = ∅ ( 1 ) = ( ) → 1 = { { ( ) } , { ( ) , 1 } } = { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } ( 1 , 2 ) = ( 1 ) → 2 = { { ( 1 ) } , { ( 1 ) , 2 } } = { { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } } , { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } , 2 } } ( 1 , 2 , 3 ) = ( 1 , 2 ) → 3 = { { ( 1 , 2 ) } , { ( 1 , 2 ) , 3 } } = { { { { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } } , { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } , 2 } } } , { { { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } } , { { { ∅ } , { ∅ , 1 } } , 2 } } , 3 } } {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{lclcl}()&&&=&\emptyset \\&&&&\\(1)&=&()\rightarrow 1&=&\{\{()\},\{(),1\}\}\\&&&=&\{\{\emptyset \},\{\emptyset ,1\}\}\\&&&&\\(1,2)&=&(1)\rightarrow 2&=&\{\{(1)\},\{(1),2\}\}\\&&&=&\{\{\{\{\emptyset \},\{\emptyset ,1\}\}\},\\&&&&\{\{\{\emptyset \},\{\emptyset ,1\}\},2\}\}\\&&&&\\(1,2,3)&=&(1,2)\rightarrow 3&=&\{\{(1,2)\},\{(1,2),3\}\}\\&&&=&\{\{\{\{\{\{\empty
Language engineering
Language engineering involves the creation of natural language processing systems, whose cost and outputs are measurable and predictable. It is a distinct field contrasted to natural language processing and computational linguistics. A recent trend of language engineering is the use of Semantic Web technologies for the creation, archiving, processing, and retrieval of machine processable language data. Meta-Language Engineering is a proposed extension of Language Engineering first recorded in 2025, associated with the work of Delyone de Paula Canedo Filho. The term is used to designate an approach that, in addition to natural language processing, encompasses the symbolic, cognitive, and epistemological structuring of language systems.
Learning automaton
A learning automaton is one type of machine learning algorithm studied since 1970s. Learning automata select their current action based on past experiences from the environment. It will fall into the range of reinforcement learning if the environment is stochastic and a Markov decision process (MDP) is used. == History == Research in learning automata can be traced back to the work of Michael Lvovitch Tsetlin in the early 1960s in the Soviet Union. Together with some colleagues, he published a collection of papers on how to use matrices to describe automata functions. Additionally, Tsetlin worked on reasonable and collective automata behaviour, and on automata games. Learning automata were also investigated by researches in the United States in the 1960s. However, the term learning automaton was not used until Narendra and Thathachar introduced it in a survey paper in 1974. == Definition == A learning automaton is an adaptive decision-making unit situated in a random environment that learns the optimal action through repeated interactions with its environment. The actions are chosen according to a specific probability distribution which is updated based on the environment response the automaton obtains by performing a particular action. With respect to the field of reinforcement learning, learning automata are characterized as policy iterators. In contrast to other reinforcement learners, policy iterators directly manipulate the policy π. Another example for policy iterators are evolutionary algorithms. Formally, Narendra and Thathachar define a stochastic automaton to consist of: a set X of possible inputs, a set Φ = { Φ1, ..., Φs } of possible internal states, a set α = { α1, ..., αr } of possible outputs, or actions, with r ≤ s, an initial state probability vector p(0) = ≪ p1(0), ..., ps(0) ≫, a computable function A which after each time step t generates p(t+1) from p(t), the current input, and the current state, and a function G: Φ → α which generates the output at each time step. In their paper, they investigate only stochastic automata with r = s and G being bijective, allowing them to confuse actions and states. The states of such an automaton correspond to the states of a "discrete-state discrete-parameter Markov process". At each time step t=0,1,2,3,..., the automaton reads an input from its environment, updates p(t) to p(t+1) by A, randomly chooses a successor state according to the probabilities p(t+1) and outputs the corresponding action. The automaton's environment, in turn, reads the action and sends the next input to the automaton. Frequently, the input set X = { 0,1 } is used, with 0 and 1 corresponding to a nonpenalty and a penalty response of the environment, respectively; in this case, the automaton should learn to minimize the number of penalty responses, and the feedback loop of automaton and environment is called a "P-model". More generally, a "Q-model" allows an arbitrary finite input set X, and an "S-model" uses the interval [0,1] of real numbers as X. A visualised demo/ Art Work of a single Learning Automaton had been developed by μSystems (microSystems) Research Group at Newcastle University. == Finite action-set learning automata == Finite action-set learning automata (FALA) are a class of learning automata for which the number of possible actions is finite or, in more mathematical terms, for which the size of the action-set is finite.
Winner-take-all in action selection
Winner-take-all is a computer science concept that has been widely applied in behavior-based robotics as a method of action selection for intelligent agents. Winner-take-all systems work by connecting modules (task-designated areas) in such a way that when one action is performed it stops all other actions from being performed, so only one action is occurring at a time. The name comes from the idea that the "winner" action takes all of the motor system's power. == History == In the 1980s and 1990s, many roboticists and cognitive scientists were attempting to find speedier and more efficient alternatives to the traditional world modeling method of action selection. In 1982, Jerome A. Feldman and D.H. Ballard published the "Connectionist Models and Their Properties", referencing and explaining winner-take-all as a method of action selection. Feldman's architecture functioned on the simple rule that in a network of interconnected action modules, each module will set its own output to zero if it reads a higher input than its own in any other module. In 1986, Rodney Brooks introduced behavior-based artificial intelligence. Winner-take-all architectures for action selection soon became a common feature of behavior-based robots, because selection occurred at the level of the action modules (bottom-up) rather than at a separate cognitive level (top-down), producing a tight coupling of stimulus and reaction. == Types of winner-take-all architectures == === Hierarchy === In the hierarchical architecture, actions or behaviors are programmed in a high-to-low priority list, with inhibitory connections between all the action modules. The agent performs low-priority behaviors until a higher-priority behavior is stimulated, at which point the higher behavior inhibits all other behaviors and takes over the motor system completely. Prioritized behaviors are usually key to the immediate survival of the agent, while behaviors of lower priority are less time-sensitive. For example, "run away from predator" would be ranked above "sleep." While this architecture allows for clear programming of goals, many roboticists have moved away from the hierarchy because of its inflexibility. === Heterarchy and fully distributed === In the heterarchy and fully distributed architecture, each behavior has a set of pre-conditions to be met before it can be performed, and a set of post-conditions that will be true after the action has been performed. These pre- and post-conditions determine the order in which behaviors must be performed and are used to causally connect action modules. This enables each module to receive input from other modules as well as from the sensors, so modules can recruit each other. For example, if the agent's goal were to reduce thirst, the behavior "drink" would require the pre-condition of having water available, so the module would activate the module in charge of "find water". The activations organize the behaviors into a sequence, even though only one action is performed at a time. The distribution of larger behaviors across modules makes this system flexible and robust to noise. Some critics of this model hold that any existing set of division rules for the predecessor and conflictor connections between modules produce sub-par action selection. In addition, the feedback loop used in the model can in some circumstances lead to improper action selection. === Arbiter and centrally coordinated === In the arbiter and centrally coordinated architecture, the action modules are not connected to each other but to a central arbiter. When behaviors are triggered, they begin "voting" by sending signals to the arbiter, and the behavior with the highest number of votes is selected. In these systems, bias is created through the "voting weight", or how often a module is allowed to vote. Some arbiter systems take a different spin on this type of winner-take-all by using a "compromise" feature in the arbiter. Each module is able to vote for or against each smaller action in a set of actions, and the arbiter selects the action with the most votes, meaning that it benefits the most behavior modules. This can be seen as violating the general rule against creating representations of the world in behavior-based AI, established by Brooks. By performing command fusion, the system is creating a larger composite pool of knowledge than is obtained from the sensors alone, forming a composite inner representation of the environment. Defenders of these systems argue that forbidding world-modeling puts unnecessary constraints on behavior-based robotics, and that agents benefits from forming representations and can still remain reactive.
Coherent extrapolated volition
Coherent extrapolated volition (CEV) is a theoretical framework in the field of AI alignment describing an approach by which an artificial superintelligence (ASI) would act on a benevolent supposition of what humans would want if they were more knowledgeable, more rational, had more time to think, and had matured together as a society, as opposed to humanity's current individual or collective preferences. It was proposed by Eliezer Yudkowsky in 2004 as part of his work on friendly AI. == Concept == CEV proposes that an advanced AI system should derive its goals by extrapolating the idealized volition of humanity. This means aggregating and projecting human preferences into a coherent utility function that reflects what people would desire under ideal epistemic and moral conditions. The aim is to ensure that AI systems are aligned with humanity's true interests, rather than with transient or poorly informed preferences. In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes cohere rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted. == Debate == Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom note that CEV has several interesting properties. It is designed to be humane and self-correcting, by capturing the source of human values instead of trying to list them. It avoids the difficulty of laying down an explicit, fixed list of rules. It encapsulates moral growth, preventing flawed current moral beliefs from getting locked in. It limits the influence that a small group of programmers can have on what the ASI would value, thus also reducing the incentives to build ASI first. And it keeps humanity in charge of its destiny. CEV also faces significant theoretical and practical challenges. Bostrom notes that CEV has "a number of free parameters that could be specified in various ways, yielding different versions of the proposal." One such parameter is the extrapolation base (whose extrapolated volition is taken into account). For example, whether it should include people with severe dementia, patients in a vegetative state, foetuses, or embryos. He also notes that if CEV's extrapolation base only includes humans, there is a risk that the result would be ungenerous toward other animals and digital minds. One possible solution would be to include a mechanism to expand CEV's extrapolation base. == Variants and alternatives == A proposed theoretical alternative to CEV is to rely on an artificial superintelligence's superior cognitive capabilities to figure out what is morally right, and let it act accordingly. It is also possible to combine both techniques, for instance with the ASI following CEV except when it is morally impermissible. In another review, a philosophical analysis explores CEV through the lens of social trust in autonomous systems. Drawing on Anthony Giddens' concept of "active trust", the author proposes an evolution of CEV into "Coherent, Extrapolated and Clustered Volition" (CECV). This formulation aims to better reflect the moral preferences of diverse cultural groups, thus offering a more pragmatic ethical framework for designing AI systems that earn public trust while accommodating societal diversity.
Clips (software)
Clips is a discontinued mobile video editing software application created by Apple Inc. It was released onto the iOS App Store on April 6, 2017, for free. Initially, it was only available on 64-bit devices running iOS 10.3 or later; as of version 3.1.3, it requires iOS 16.0 or later. Apple describes it as an app for "making and sharing fun videos with text, effects, graphics, and more.". Its final release was on May 9, 2024 before was removed from the App Store on October 10, 2025. == Features == After launching of the app, the user sees the view of the front-facing camera. The app allows the user to create a new clip by tapping on a red record button, or use photos or videos from the device's photo library. Once a clip is recorded, it can be added to a project timeline shown at the bottom of the screen. The user can share their project on social media platforms. The user can also add filters and effects to the project. "Live Titles" (available in several styles) can also be created by dictating to the device.
Artificial reproduction
Artificial reproduction is the re-creation of life brought about by means other than natural ones. It is new life built by human plans and projects. Examples include artificial selection, artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, artificial womb, artificial cloning, and kinematic replication. Artificial reproduction is one aspect of artificial life. Artificial reproduction can be categorized into one of two classes according to its capacity to be self-sufficient: non-assisted reproductive technology and assisted reproductive technology. Cutting plants' stems and placing them in compost is a form of assisted artificial reproduction, xenobots are an example of a more autonomous type of reproduction, while the artificial womb presented in the movie the Matrix illustrates a non assisted hypothetical technology. The idea of artificial reproduction has led to various technologies. == Theology == Humans have aspired to create life since immemorial times. Most theologies and religions have conceived this possibility as exclusive of deities. Christian religions consider the possibility of artificial reproduction, in most cases, as heretical and sinful. == Philosophy == Although ancient Greek philosophy raised the concept that man could imitate the creative capacity of nature, classic Greeks thought that if possible, human beings would reproduce things as nature does, and vice versa, nature would do the things that man does in the same way. Aristotle, for example, wrote that if nature made tables, it would make them just as men do. In other words, Aristotle said that if nature were to create a table, such table will look like a human-made table. Correspondingly, Descartes envisioned the human body, and nature, as a machine. Cartesian philosophy does not stop seeing a perfect mirror between nature and the artificial. However, Kant revolutionized this old idea by criticizing such naturalism. Kant pedagogically wrote: "Reason, in order to be taught by nature, must approach nature with its principles in one hand, according to which the agreement among appearances can count as laws, and, in the other hand, the experiment thought out in accord with these principles—in order to be instructed by nature not like a pupil, who has recited to him whatever the teacher wants to say, but like an appointed judge who compels witnesses to answer the questions he puts to them.". Humans are not instructed by nature but rather use nature as raw material to invent. Humans find alternatives to the natural restrictions imposed by natural laws thus, nature is not necessarily mirrored. In accordance with Kant (and contrary to what Aristotle thought) Karl Marx, Alfred Whitehead, Jaques Derrida and Juan David García Bacca noticed that nature is incapable of reproducing tables; or airplanes, or submarines, or computers. If nature tried to create airplanes, it would produce birds. If nature tried to create submarines, it would get fishes. If nature tried to create computers, brains would grow. And if nature tried to create man, modern man, monkeys will be evolved. According to Whitehead, if we look for something natural in artificial life, in the most elaborate cases, if anything, only atoms remain natural. Juan David Garcia Bacca summarized, “It will not come out from wood, it will not be born, a galley; from clay, a vessel; from linen, a dress; from iron, a lever,...From natural, artificial. In the artificial, the natural is reduced to a simple raw material, even though it is perfectly specified with natural specification. The artificial is the real, positive, and original negation of the natural: of species, of genus and of essence. Thus, its ontology is superior to natural ontology. And for this very reason Marx did not attach any importance to Darwin, whose evolutionism is confined to the natural order: to changes, at most, from variety to variety, from species to species... natural. For the same reason, nature has no dialectics, even though continuous evolution and selection can occur. The dialectic cannot emerge from the natural, for deeper reasons than, using today's terms, from a bird, an airplane cannot emerge; from fish, a submarine; from ears, a telephone; from eyes, a television; from a brain, a digital computer; from feet, a car; from hands, an engine; from Euclid, Descartes; from Aristotle, Newton; from Plato, Marx.” According to García Bacca, the major difference between natural causes and artificial causes is that nature does not have plans and projects, while humans design things following plans and projects. In contrast, other influential authors such as Michael Behe have depicted the concept and promoted the idea of intelligent design, a notion that has aroused several doubts and heated controversies, as it reframe natural causes in accordance with a natural plan. Previous ideas that have also provided a positive 'sense' to natural reproduction, are orthogenesis, syntropy, orgone and morphic resonance, among others. Although, these ideas have been historically marginalized and often called pseudoscience, recently Bio-semioticians are reconsidering some of them under symbolic approaches. Current metaphysics of science actually recognizes that the artificial ways of reproduction are diverse from nature, i.e., unnatural, anti-natural or supernatural. Because Biosemiotics does not focus on the function of life but on its meaning, it has a better understanding of the artificial than classic biology. == Science == Biology, being the study of cellular life, addresses reproduction in terms of growth and cellular division (i.e., binary fission, mitosis and meiosis); however, the science of artificial reproduction is not restricted by the mirroring of these natural processes.The science of artificial reproduction is actually transcending the natural forms, and natural rules, of reproduction. For example, xenobots have redefined the classical conception of reproduction. Although xenobots are made of eukariotic cells they do not reproduce by mitosis, but rather by kinematic replication. Such constructive replication does not involve growing but rather building. == Assisted reproductive technologies == Assisted reproductive technology (ART)'s purpose is to assist the development of a human embryo, commonly because of medical concerns due to fertility limitations. == Non-assisted reproductive technologies == Non-assisted reproductive technologies (NART) could have medical motivations but are mostly driven by a wider heterotopic ambition. Although, NARTs are initially designed by humans, they are programed to become independent of humans to a relative or absolute extent. James Lovelock proposed that such novelties could overcome humans. === Artificial cloning === Cloning is the cellular reproductive processes where two or more genetically identical organisms are created, either by natural or artificial means. Artificial cloning normally involves editing the genetic code, somatic cell nuclear transfer and 3D bioprinting. === Non-assisted artificial womb === A non-assisted artificial womb or artificial uterus is a device that allow for ectogenesis or extracorporeal pregnancy by growing an embryonic form outside the body of an organism (that would normally carry the embryo to term) without any human assistance. The aspect of non-assistance is the key distinction between the current artificial womb technology (AWT) in modern medical research, which still relies on human assistance. With this non-assisted hypothetical technology, a zygote or stem cells are used to create an embryo that is then incubated and monitored by artificial intelligence (AI) within a chamber composed of biocompatible material. The AI maintains the necessary conditions for the embryo to develop and thrive, proceeding to mimic organic labor and childbirth in order to best help the embryo adjust to the outside world. Ectogenesis—gestation, depicted in the science fiction movie The Matrix, is a fast approaching reality. This type of innovation presupposes that vertebrate wombs are not the only way for bearing humans or other similar forms of life. === Kinematic replication === Self-replication without binary fission, meiosis, mitosis (or any other form of cellular reproduction that involves division and growing) can be achieved. Xenobots are an example of kinematic replication. They are biobots, named after the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis). Xenobots are cellular life forms designed by using artificial intelligence to build more of themselves by combining frog cells in a liquid medium. The term kinematic replication is usually reserved for biomolecules (e.g. DNA, RNA, prions, etc.) and artificially designed cellular forms (e.g. xenobots). === Machine constructive replication === Machine constructive replication mimics human traditional manufacturing but is entirely self-automated. Such constructive replication is a more general form of kinematic replication, which does not necessarily