Artificial Intelligence: A General Survey, commonly known as the Lighthill report, is a scholarly article by James Lighthill, published in Artificial Intelligence: a paper symposium in 1973. It was compiled by Lighthill for the British Science Research Council as an evaluation of academic research in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). The report gave a very pessimistic prognosis for many core aspects of research in this field, stating that "In no part of the field have the discoveries made so far produced the major impact that was then promised". It "formed the basis for the decision by the British government to end support for AI research in most British universities", contributing to an AI winter in the United Kingdom. == Publication history == It was commissioned by the SRC in 1972 for Lighthill to "make a personal review of the subject [of AI]". Lighthill completed the report in July. The SRC discussed the report in September, and decided to publish it, together with some alternative points of view by Stuart Sutherland, Roger Needham, Christopher Longuet-Higgins, and Donald Michie. The SRC's decision to invite the report was partly a reaction to high levels of discord within the University of Edinburgh's Department of Artificial Intelligence, one of the earliest and biggest centres for AI research in the UK. On May 9, 1973, Lighthill debated several leading AI researchers (Donald Michie, John McCarthy, Richard Gregory) at the Royal Institution in London concerning the report. == Content == While the report was supportive of research into the simulation of neurophysiological and psychological processes, it was "highly critical of basic research in foundational areas such as robotics and language processing". The report stated that AI researchers had failed to address the issue of combinatorial explosion when solving problems within real-world domains. That is, the report states that whilst AI techniques may have worked within the scope of small problem domains, the techniques would not scale up well to solve more realistic problems. The report represents a pessimistic view of AI that began after early excitement in the field. The report divides AI research into three categories: Advanced Automation ("A"): applications of AI, such as optical character recognition, mechanical component design and manufacture, missile perception and guidance, etc. Computer-based Central Nervous System research ("C"): building computational models of human brains (neurobiology) and behavior (psychology). Bridge, or Building Robots ("B"): research that combines categories A and C. This category is intentionally vague. Projects in category A had had some success, but only in restricted domains where a large quantity of detailed knowledge was used in designing the program. This was disappointing to researchers who hoped for generic methods. Due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion, the amount of detailed knowledge required by the program quickly grew too large to be entered by hand, thus restricting projects to restricted domains. Projects in category C had had some measure of success. Artificial neural networks were successfully used to model neurobiological data. SHRDLU demonstrated that human use of language, even in fine details, depends on the semantics or knowledge, and is not purely syntactical. This was influential in psycholinguistics. Attempts to extend SHRDLU to larger domains of discourse was considered impractical, again due to the issue of the combinatorial explosion. Projects in category B were held to be failures. One important project, that of "programming and building a robot that would mimic human ability in a combination of eye-hand co-ordination and common-sense problem solving", was considered entirely disappointing. Similarly, chess playing programs were no better than human amateurs. Due to the combinatorial explosion, the run-time of general algorithms quickly grew impractical, requiring detailed problem-specific heuristics. The report stated that it was expected that within the next 25 years, category A would simply become applied technologies engineering, C would integrate with psychology and neurobiology, while category B would be abandoned.
Automate This
Automate This: How Algorithms Came to Rule Our World is a book written by Christopher Steiner and published by Penguin Group. == Book == Steiner begins his study of algorithms on Wall Street in the 1980s but also provides examples from other industries. For example, he explains the history of Pandora Radio and the use of algorithms in music identification. He expresses concern that such use of algorithms may lead to the homogenization of music over time. Steiner also discusses the algorithms that eLoyalty (now owned by Mattersight Corporation following divestiture of the technology) was created by dissecting 2 million speech patterns and can now identify a caller's personality style and direct the caller with a compatible customer support representative. Steiner's book shares both the warning and the opportunity that algorithms bring to just about every industry in the world, and the pros and cons of the societal impact of automation (e.g. impact on employment).
AI notetaker
An AI notetaker is a tool using artificial intelligence to take notes during meetings. They are created by tech companies such as Microsoft and Google; by AI transcription services such Otter.ai, and by smaller firms such as Cluely and Krisp. Some business executives send AI notetakers to attend meetings not only to take notes, but also to answer questions on their behalf. The use of AI notetakers raises ethical questions, including recording meetings without the consent of all participants and the possibility that the notetaker will hallucinate and misrepresent what was said during meetings. There are also concerns when it comes to the privacy and security of meeting data and the sensitive information that lives inside meetings. Further controversies have developed from the use of AI notetakers such as Cluely to cheat in technical job interviews. == Technology == Large technology companies have integrated transcription capabilities into broader productivity and accessibility tools, including real-time captioning, dictation, and meeting documentation features embedded in operating systems and office platforms. Standalone transcription platforms, such as Transkriptor, focus specifically on automated transcription workflows and apply AI-based speech recognition to convert audio and video recordings into text. The software supports transcription in multiple languages and processes recordings uploaded via a web interface as well as through mobile and browser extensions. Tools of this type typically provide editable, time-aligned transcripts and export options for text and subtitle formats, cloud-based processing, multilingual support, and automation in transcription technology.
Library and information scientist
A library and information scientist, also known as a library scholar, is a researcher or academic who specializes in the field of library and information science and often participates in scholarly writing about and related to library and information science. A library and information scientist is neither limited to any one subfield of library and information science nor any one particular type of library. These scientists come from all information-related sectors including library and book history. == University of Chicago Graduate Library School == The University of Chicago Graduate Library School was established in 1928 to grant a graduate degree in librarianship with an emphasis on research. The program expanded the concept of librarianship, focused on scientific inquiry and established it as a domain for scientific study. In The Spirit of Inquiry: The Graduate Library School at Chicago, 1921-51 Richardson reviewed the history of the School and its impact on the discipline. == Bibliometric mappings == Bibliometric methods have been used to create maps of library and information science, thus identifying the most important researchers as well as their relative connections (or distances) and identifying emerging trends related to LIS publications within the field. White and McCain (1998) made a map of information science and Åström (2002), Chen, Ibekwe-SanJuan, and Hou (2010), Janssens, Leta, Glanzel, and De Moor (2006), and Zhao and Strotmann (2008) constructed some later maps of library and information science. Jabeen, Yun, Rafiq, and Jabeen (2015) mapped the growth and trends of LIS publications. == Notable library and information scientists == See also Beta Phi Mu Award, Award of Merit - Association for Information Science and Technology, Justin Winsor Prize (library)
QuickPar
QuickPar is a computer program that creates parchives used as verification and recovery information for a file or group of files, and uses the recovery information, if available, to attempt to reconstruct the originals from the damaged files and the PAR volumes. Designed for the Microsoft Windows operating system, in the past it was often used to recover damaged or missing files that have been downloaded through Usenet. QuickPar may also be used under Linux via Wine. There are two main versions of PAR files: PAR and PAR2. The PAR2 file format lifts many of its previous restrictions. QuickPar is freeware but not open-source. It uses the Reed-Solomon error correction algorithm internally to create the error correcting information. == Replacement == Since QuickPar hasn't been updated in 21 years, it is considered abandonware. Currently, MultiPar is accepted as the software that replaces QuickPar. MultiPar is actively being developed by Yutaka Sawada. == 64-bit versions == At present the command line version of QuickPar for Linux command line is available as a 64-bit version. None of the GUI versions available presently offer a 64-bit version.
Convolutional layer
In artificial neural networks, a convolutional layer is a type of network layer that applies a convolution operation to the input. Convolutional layers are some of the primary building blocks of convolutional neural networks (CNNs), a class of neural network most commonly applied to images, video, audio, and other data that have the property of uniform translational symmetry. The convolution operation in a convolutional layer involves sliding a small window (called a kernel or filter) across the input data and computing the dot product between the values in the kernel and the input at each position. This process creates a feature map that represents detected features in the input. == Concepts == === Kernel === Kernels, also known as filters, are small matrices of weights that are learned during the training process. Each kernel is responsible for detecting a specific feature in the input data. The size of the kernel is a hyperparameter that affects the network's behavior. === Convolution === For a 2D input x {\displaystyle x} and a 2D kernel w {\displaystyle w} , the 2D convolution operation can be expressed as: y [ i , j ] = ∑ m = 0 k h − 1 ∑ n = 0 k w − 1 x [ i + m , j + n ] ⋅ w [ m , n ] {\displaystyle y[i,j]=\sum _{m=0}^{k_{h}-1}\sum _{n=0}^{k_{w}-1}x[i+m,j+n]\cdot w[m,n]} where k h {\displaystyle k_{h}} and k w {\displaystyle k_{w}} are the height and width of the kernel, respectively. This generalizes immediately to nD convolutions. Commonly used convolutions are 1D (for audio and text), 2D (for images), and 3D (for spatial objects, and videos). === Stride === Stride determines how the kernel moves across the input data. A stride of 1 means the kernel shifts by one pixel at a time, while a larger stride (e.g., 2 or 3) results in less overlap between convolutions and produces smaller output feature maps. === Padding === Padding involves adding extra pixels around the edges of the input data. It serves two main purposes: Preserving spatial dimensions: Without padding, each convolution reduces the size of the feature map. Handling border pixels: Padding ensures that border pixels are given equal importance in the convolution process. Common padding strategies include: No padding/valid padding. This strategy typically causes the output to shrink. Same padding: Any method that ensures the output size same as input size is a same padding strategy. Full padding: Any method that ensures each input entry is convolved over for the same number of times is a full padding strategy. Common padding algorithms include: Zero padding: Add zero entries to the borders of input. Mirror/reflect/symmetric padding: Reflect the input array on the border. Circular padding: Cycle the input array back to the opposite border, like a torus. The exact numbers used in convolutions is complicated, for which we refer to (Dumoulin and Visin, 2018) for details. == Variants == === Standard === The basic form of convolution as described above, where each kernel is applied to the entire input volume. === Depthwise separable === Depthwise separable convolution separates the standard convolution into two steps: depthwise convolution and pointwise convolution. The depthwise separable convolution decomposes a single standard convolution into two convolutions: a depthwise convolution that filters each input channel independently and a pointwise convolution ( 1 × 1 {\displaystyle 1\times 1} convolution) that combines the outputs of the depthwise convolution. This factorization significantly reduces computational cost. It was first developed by Laurent Sifre during an internship at Google Brain in 2013 as an architectural variation on AlexNet to improve convergence speed and model size. === Dilated === Dilated convolution, or atrous convolution, introduces gaps between kernel elements, allowing the network to capture a larger receptive field without increasing the kernel size. === Transposed === Transposed convolution, also known as deconvolution, fractionally strided convolution, and upsampling convolution, is a convolution where the output tensor is larger than its input tensor. It's often used in encoder-decoder architectures for upsampling. It's used in image generation, semantic segmentation, and super-resolution tasks. == History == The concept of convolution in neural networks was inspired by the visual cortex in biological brains. Early work by Hubel and Wiesel in the 1960s on the cat's visual system laid the groundwork for artificial convolution networks. An early convolution neural network was developed by Kunihiko Fukushima in 1969. It had mostly hand-designed kernels inspired by convolutions in mammalian vision. In 1979 he improved it to the Neocognitron, which learns all convolutional kernels by unsupervised learning (in his terminology, "self-organized by 'learning without a teacher'"). During the 1988 to 1998 period, a series of CNN were introduced by Yann LeCun et al., ending with LeNet-5 in 1998. It was an early influential CNN architecture for handwritten digit recognition, trained on the MNIST dataset, and was used in ATM. (Olshausen & Field, 1996) discovered that simple cells in the mammalian primary visual cortex implement localized, oriented, bandpass receptive fields, which could be recreated by fitting sparse linear codes for natural scenes. This was later found to also occur in the lowest-level kernels of trained CNNs. The field saw a resurgence in the 2010s with the development of deeper architectures and the availability of large datasets and powerful GPUs. AlexNet, developed by Alex Krizhevsky et al. in 2012, was a catalytic event in modern deep learning. In that year’s ImageNet competition, the AlexNet model achieved a 16% top-five error rate, significantly outperforming the next best entry, which had a 26% error rate. The network used eight trainable layers, approximately 650,000 neurons, and around 60 million parameters, highlighting the impact of deeper architectures and GPU acceleration on image recognition performance. From the 2013 ImageNet competition, most entries adopted deep convolutional neural networks, building on the success of AlexNet. Over the following years, performance steadily improved, with the top-five error rate falling from 16% in 2012 and 12% in 2013 to below 3% by 2017, as networks grew increasingly deep.
Source criticism
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant. Broadly, "source criticism" is the interdisciplinary study of how information sources are evaluated for given tasks. == Meaning == Problems in translation: The Danish word kildekritik, like the Norwegian word kildekritikk and the Swedish word källkritik, derived from the German Quellenkritik and is closely associated with the German historian Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). Historian Wolfgang Hardtwig wrote: His [Ranke's] first work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494–1514 (History of the Latin and Teutonic Nations from 1494 to 1514) (1824) was a great success. It already showed some of the basic characteristics of his conception of Europe, and was of historiographical importance particularly because Ranke made an exemplary critical analysis of his sources in a separate volume, Zur Kritik neuerer Geschichtsschreiber (On the Critical Methods of Recent Historians). In this work he raised the method of textual criticism used in the late eighteenth century, particularly in classical philology to the standard method of scientific historical writing. (Hardtwig, 2001, p. 12739) Historical theorist Chris Lorenz wrote: The larger part of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries would be dominated by the research-oriented conception of historical method of the so-called Historical School in Germany, led by historians as Leopold Ranke and Berthold Niebuhr. Their conception of history, long been regarded as the beginning of modern, 'scientific' history, harked back to the 'narrow' conception of historical method, limiting the methodical character of history to source criticism. (Lorenz, 2001) In the early 21st century, source criticism is a growing field in, among other fields, library and information science. In this context source criticism is studied from a broader perspective than just, for example, history, classical philology, or biblical studies (but there, too, it has more recently received new attention). == Principles == The following principles are from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, written by the historians Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997): Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narratives. A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability. The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on. If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations. If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased. Two other principles are: Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute for subject knowledge: "Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304). The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it. "The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007). The following questions are often good ones to ask about any source according to the American Library Association (1994) and Engeldinger (1988): How was the source located? What type of source is it? Who is the author and what are the qualifications of the author in regard to the topic that is discussed? When was the information published? In which country was it published? What is the reputation of the publisher? Does the source show a particular cultural or political bias? For literary sources complementing criteria are: Does the source contain a bibliography? Has the material been reviewed by a group of peers, or has it been edited? How does the article/book compare with similar articles/books? == Levels of generality == Some principles of source criticism are universal, other principles are specific for certain kinds of information sources. There is today no consensus about the similarities and differences between source criticism in the natural science and humanities. Logical positivism claimed that all fields of knowledge were based on the same principles. Much of the criticism of logical positivism claimed that positivism is the basis of the sciences, whereas hermeneutics is the basis of the humanities. This was, for example, the position of Jürgen Habermas. A newer position, in accordance with, among others, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn, understands both science and humanities as determined by researchers' preunderstanding and paradigms. Hermeneutics is thus a universal theory. The difference is, however, that the sources of the humanities are themselves products of human interests and preunderstanding, whereas the sources of the natural sciences are not. Humanities are thus "doubly hermeneutic". Natural scientists, however, are also using human products (such as scientific papers) which are products of preunderstanding (and can lead to, for example, academic fraud). == Contributing fields == === Epistemology === Epistemological theories are the basic theories about how knowledge is obtained and are thus the most general theories about how to evaluate information sources. Empiricism evaluates sources by considering the observations (or sensations) on which they are based. Sources without basis in experience are not seen as valid. Rationalism provides low priority to sources based on observations. In order to be meaningful, observations must be explained by clear ideas or concepts. It is the logical structure and the well definedness that is in focus in evaluating information sources from the rationalist point of view. Historicism evaluates information sources on the basis of their reflection of their sociocultural context and their theoretical development. Pragmatism evaluate sources on the basis of how their values and usefulness to accomplish certain outcomes. Pragmatism is skeptical about claimed neutral information sources. The evaluation of knowledge or information sources cannot be more certain than is the construction of knowledge. If one accepts the principle of fallibilism then one also has to accept that source criticism can never 100% verify knowledge claims. As discussed in the next section, source criticism is intimately linked to scientific methods. The presence of fallacies of argument in sources is another kind of philosophical criterion for evaluating sources. Fallacies are presented by Walton (1998). Among the fallacies are the ad hominem fallacy (the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute a person's argument) and the straw man fallacy (when one arguer misrepresents another's position to make it appear less plausible than it really is, in order more easily to criticize or refute it.) === Research methodology === Research methods are methods used to produce scholarly knowledge. The methods that are relevant for producing knowledge are also relevant for evaluating knowledge. An example of a book that turns methodology upside-down and uses it to evaluate produced knowledge is Katzer; Cook & Crouch (1998). === Science studies === Studies of quality evaluation processes such as peer review, book reviews and of the normative criteria used in evaluation of scientific and scholarly research. Another field is the study of scientific misconduct. Harris (1979) provides a case study of how a famous experiment in psychology, Little Albert, has been distorted throughout the history of psychology, starting with the author (Watson) himself, general textbook authors, behavior therapists, and a prominent learning theorist. Harris proposes possible causes for these distortions and analyzes the Albert study as an ex