Barbara Di Eugenio is an Italian-American computer scientist, the Collegiate Warren S. McCulloch Professor of Computer Science at the University of Illinois Chicago. Her research focuses on natural language processing and its applications to human–computer interaction, educational technology, and artificial intelligence in healthcare. == Education and career == Di Eugenio is originally from Turin. After an undergraduate education in Italy, she completed her Ph.D. in computer and information science in 1993 at the University of Pennsylvania. Her dissertation, Understanding Natural Language Instructions: A Computational Approach to Purpose Clauses, was supervised by Bonnie Webber. She became a faculty member at the University of Illinois Chicago in 1999, and at that time was the only woman faculty member in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. == Recognition == In 2022, Di Eugenio received the Zenith Award of the Association for Women in Science. She was named as a Fellow of the Association for Computational Linguistics in 2023, "for outstanding contributions to natural language generation; intelligent tutoring systems; discourse; intercoder agreement; and applying multimodal interactive systems to health".
1 Second Everyday
1 Second Everyday (1SE) is an application developed by Cesar Kuriyama. The application allows the user to record one second of video every day and then chronologically edits (mashes) them together into a single film. It is compatible with iOS and Android. The idea of the application was developed by Kuriyama's 1 Second Everyday — Age 30 video. The application was launched in January 2013. 1 Second Everyday played a part in the plot of Chef and also became the inspiration for the 2014 short animated clip Feast. == Background == === Kuriyama's video === In February 2011, when Cesar Kuriyama turned 30, after saving money, he quit his job in an advertising firm and took a year off to travel. During this time, he started working on a project he called 1 Second Everyday. As part of the project, every day he recorded one second of video – something that was supposed to help him remember that day. He started the project because he was frustrated with his memory. He planned to stockpile the 365 one-second clips into one film to serve as a memento of his year. While working on the project Kuriyama realized that recording one second every day impacted the decisions he made in a positive way. After a year he made a 365-second clip out of his recordings. The video called 1 Second Everyday – Age 30, went viral. According to Kuriyama, he was initially inspired to take a year off from work by a TED talk given by Stefan Sagmeister called "The Power of Time Off." Kuriyama also delivered a TED talk about 1 Second Everyday in 2012 at TED 2012 in Long Beach California. === Kickstarter campaign === After completing his own video, Kuriyama decided to develop an application that would allow the users to record one second every day and compile their own videos. He developed a prototype of the application and then in 2012, he launched a Kickstarter campaign to raise funds for completing the application. The campaign became one of the most backed app campaigns in the history of Kickstarter. It was backed by 11,281 backers who pledged a total of $56,959 on an initial goal of $20,000. Following the completion of the Kickstarter campaign, he partnered with an application design studio in Brooklyn to develop the application. 1 Second Everyday was released two weeks after the completion of its Kickstarter campaign. == Application == The application was released for iOS on 10 January 2013. An Android-compatible version of the application was developed later. Using it, the user can record the videos in the application or they can select one second portions from their libraries. 1 Second Everyday dates every snippet. The user can also set alarms to remember to record their daily video. In order to compile a video, the user selects the seconds they want and the application creates a compilation video. The user can keep multiple timelines. It also allows users to post directly on social networks. The main interface in 1 Second Everyday is a calendar, which shows the user which days have snippets and which they can still fill in. In the beginning, 1 Second Everyday restricted the recording to one second. However, the developers later released Super Seconds, which allowed users to record an additional half a second video. In 2014, 1 Second Everyday Crowds was launched, which is an area in the application featuring compilations of second clips from different users. == In the media == The Kickstarter campaign of 1 Second Everyday was featured in Entrepreneur's 3 Innovative Tech Startups on Kickstarter Right Now in 2012. The application was featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Gawker and other media outlets. By the end of the launch day, it was in Top 10 Free Apps on App Store. It was also selected as the App of the Week on GeekWire in 2013. Several other one-second compilation videos were also posted on the Internet after Kuriyama's video gained media attention. Sam Cornwell, an English photographer documented his son Indigo's growth using a montage of one-second iPhone clips. He shot these clips every single day from the moment of birth right up to the baby's first birthday. According to Cornwell, he was inspired by Kuriyama's project. The video of Cornwell's son gained considerable media attention after it was posted on YouTube. Save the Children also made a video commercial based on a similar format that showed a British girl oblivious of the Syrian war end up being a refugee. 1SE was a finalist for the Fast Company Innovation by Design Award in 2015, but lost to Google Maps. In 2015, Google Android created a gallery, Leap Second 2015, with the help of Droga5 and Kuriyama. The gallery showcased how people around the world enjoyed the one extra second of their lives. Through the 1 Second Everyday app available at Google Play, people were able to submit their extra second, which were then vetted and added to the gallery. The viewers were able to view other celebratory seconds from around the world as well as searching for them using different hashtags.
Pop music automation
Pop music automation is a field of study among musicians and computer scientists with a goal of producing successful pop music algorithmically. It is often based on the premise that pop music is especially formulaic, unchanging, and easy to compose. The idea of automating pop music composition is related to many ideas in algorithmic music, artificial intelligence (AI) and computational creativity. == History of automation in music == Algorithms (or, at the very least, formal sets of rules) have been used to compose music for centuries; the procedures used to plot voice-leading in counterpoint, for example, can often be reduced to algorithmic determinant. Now the term is usually reserved, however, for the use of formal procedures to make music without human intervention. Classical music automation software exists that generates music in the style of Mozart and Bach and jazz. Most notably, David Cope has written a software system called "Experiments in Musical Intelligence" (or "EMI") that is capable of analyzing and generalizing from existing music by a human composer to generate novel musical compositions in the same style. EMI's output is convincing enough to persuade human listeners that its music is human-generated to a high level of competence. Creativity research in jazz has focused on the process of improvisation and the cognitive demands that this places on a musical agent: reasoning about time, remembering and conceptualizing what has already been played, and planning ahead for what might be played next. Inevitably associated with pop music automation is pop music analysis. Projects in pop music automation may include, but are not limited to, ideas in melody creation and song development, vocal generation or improvement, automatic accompaniment and lyric composition. == Automatic accompaniment == Some systems exist that automatically choose chords to accompany a vocal melody in real-time. A user with no musical experience can create a song with instrumental accompaniment just by singing into a microphone. An example is a Microsoft Research project called Songsmith, which trains a Hidden Markov model using a music database and uses that model to select chords for new melodies. == Melody generation == Automatic melody generation is often done with a Markov chain, the states of the system become note or pitch values, and a probability vector for each note is constructed, completing a transition probability matrix (see below). An algorithm is constructed to produce an output note values based on the transition matrix weightings, which could be MIDI note values, frequency (Hz), or any other desirable metric. A second-order Markov chain can be introduced by considering the current state and also the previous state, as indicated in the second table. Higher, nth-order chains tend to "group" particular notes together, while 'breaking off' into other patterns and sequences occasionally. These higher-order chains tend to generate results with a sense of phrasal structure, rather than the 'aimless wandering' produced by a first-order system. == Lyric composition == Automated lyric creating software may take forms such as: Selecting words according to their rhythm The Tra-la-Lyrics system produces song lyrics, in Portuguese, for a given melody. This not only involves matching each word syllable with a note in the melody, but also matching the word's stress with the strong beats of the melody. Parsing existing pop music (e.g. for content or word choice) This involves natural language processing. Pablo Gervás has developed a noteworthy system called ASPERA that employs a case-based reasoning (CBR) approach to generating poetic formulations of a given input text via a composition of poetic fragments that are retrieved from a case-base of existing poems. Each poem fragment in the ASPERA case-base is annotated with a prose string that expresses the meaning of the fragment, and this prose string is used as the retrieval key for each fragment. Metrical rules are then used to combine these fragments into a well-formed poetic structure. Automatic analogy or story creation Programs like TALE-SPIN and The MINSTREL system represent a complex elaboration of this basis approach, distinguishing a range of character-level goals in the story from a range of author-level goals for the story. Systems like Bringsjord's BRUTUS can create stories with complex interpersonal themes like betrayal. On-line metaphor generation systems like 'Sardonicus' or 'Aristotle' can suggest lexical metaphors for a given descriptive goal (e.g., to describe a supermodel as skinny, the source terms “pencil”, “whip”, “whippet”, “rope”, “stick-insect” and “snake” are suggested). Free association of grouped words Using a language database (such as wordnet) one can create musings on a subject that may be weak grammatically but are still sensical. See such projects as the Flowerewolf automatic poetry generator or the Dada engine. == Software == === More or less free === BreathCube by xoxos. Simple lyrical vocal content is generated with simple music. CubeBreath by xoxos. Audio input is vocoded in tune with the music. Midi Internet Algorithmic Composition infno, infinite generator of electronic dance music and synth-pop. Algorithmic Trap, trap beat generator. === Commercial === Band in a box generates any element, potentially creates whole new songs from scratch. Musical Palette - Melody Composing Tool SongSmith: Automatic accompaniment for vocal melodies Ludwig 3.0 automatic accompaniment, writes arrangements for given instruments, plays its own songs for an infinitely long time. Automated Composing System creates music in many different styles
Computing Machinery and Intelligence
"Computing Machinery and Intelligence" is a paper written by Alan Turing on the topic of artificial intelligence. The paper, published in 1950 in Mind, was the first to introduce his concept of what is now known as the Turing test to the general public. Turing's paper considers the question "Can machines think?" Turing says that since the words "think" and "machine" cannot clearly be defined, we should "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." To achieve this objective, Turing proposes a three-step approach. First, he identifies a simple and unambiguous concept to substitute for the term "think." Second, he delineates the specific "machines" under consideration. Third, armed with these tools, he poses a new question related to the first, which he believes he can answer in the affirmative. == Turing's test == Rather than trying to determine if a machine is thinking, Turing suggests we should ask if the machine can win a game, called the "Imitation Game". The original Imitation game, that Turing described, is a simple party game involving three players. Player A is a man, player B is a woman and player C (who plays the role of the interrogator) can be of either sex. In the Imitation Game, player C is unable to see either player A or player B (and knows them only as X and Y), and can communicate with them only through written notes or any other form that does not give away any details about their gender. By asking questions of player A and player B, player C tries to determine which of the two is the man and which is the woman. Player A's role is to trick the interrogator into making the wrong decision, while player B attempts to assist the interrogator in making the right one. Turing proposes a variation of this game that involves the computer: We now ask the question, "What will happen when a machine takes the part of A in this game?" Will the interrogator decide wrongly as often when the game is played like this as he does when the game is played between a man and a woman? These questions replace our original, "Can machines think?" So the modified game becomes one that involves three participants in isolated rooms: a computer (which is being tested), a human, and a (human) judge. The human judge can converse with both the human and the computer by typing into a terminal. Both the computer and the human try to convince the judge that they are the human. If the judge cannot consistently tell which is which, then the computer wins the game. Researchers in the United Kingdom had been exploring "machine intelligence" for up to ten years prior to the founding of the field of artificial intelligence (AI) research in 1956. It was a common topic among the members of the Ratio Club, an informal group of British cybernetics and electronics researchers that included Alan Turing. Turing, in particular, had been running the notion of machine intelligence since at least 1941 and one of the earliest-known mentions of "computer intelligence" was made by him in 1947. As Stevan Harnad notes, the question has become "Can machines do what we (as thinking entities) can do?" In other words, Turing is no longer asking whether a machine can "think"; he is asking whether a machine can act indistinguishably from the way a thinker acts. This question avoids the difficult philosophical problem of pre-defining the verb "to think" and focuses instead on the performance capacities that being able to think makes possible, and how a causal system can generate them. Since Turing introduced his test, it has been both highly influential and widely criticised, and has become an important concept in the philosophy of artificial intelligence. Some of its criticisms, such as John Searle's Chinese room, are themselves controversial. Some have taken Turing's question to have been "Can a computer, communicating over a teleprinter, fool a person into believing it is human?" but it seems clear that Turing was not talking about fooling people but about generating human cognitive capacity. == Digital machines == Turing also notes that we need to determine which "machines" we wish to consider. He points out that a human clone, while man-made, would not provide a very interesting example. Turing suggested that we should focus on the capabilities of digital machinery—machines which manipulate the binary digits of 1 and 0, rewriting them into memory using simple rules. He gave two reasons. First, there is no reason to speculate whether or not they can exist. They already did in 1950. Second, digital machinery is "universal". Turing's research into the foundations of computation had proved that a digital computer can, in theory, simulate the behaviour of any other digital machine, given enough memory and time. (This is the essential insight of the Church–Turing thesis and the universal Turing machine.) Therefore, if any digital machine can "act like it is thinking", then every sufficiently powerful digital machine can. Turing writes, "all digital computers are in a sense equivalent." This allows the original question to be made even more specific. Turing now restates the original question as "Let us fix our attention on one particular digital computer C. Is it true that by modifying this computer to have an adequate storage, suitably increasing its speed of action, and providing it with an appropriate programme, C can be made to play satisfactorily the part of A in the imitation game, the part of B being taken by a man?" Hence, Turing states that the focus is not on "whether all digital computers would do well in the game nor whether the computers that are presently available would do well, but whether there are imaginable computers which would do well". What is more important is to consider the advancements possible in the state of our machines today regardless of whether we have the available resource to create one or not. == Nine common objections == Having clarified the question, Turing turned to answering it: he considered the following nine common objections, which include all the major arguments against artificial intelligence raised in the years since his paper was first published. Religious Objection: This states that thinking is a function of man's immortal soul; therefore, a machine cannot think. "In attempting to construct such machines," wrote Turing, "we should not be irreverently usurping His power of creating souls, any more than we are in the procreation of children: rather we are, in either case, instruments of His will providing mansions for the souls that He creates." 'Heads in the Sand' Objection: "The consequences of machines thinking would be too dreadful. Let us hope and believe that they cannot do so." This thinking is popular among intellectual people, as they believe superiority derives from higher intelligence and the possibility of being overtaken is a threat (as machines have efficient memory capacities and processing speed, machines exceeding the learning and knowledge capabilities are highly probable). This objection is a fallacious appeal to consequences, confusing what should not be with what can or cannot be (Wardrip-Fruin, 56). The Mathematical Objection: This objection uses mathematical theorems, such as Gödel's incompleteness theorem, to show that there are limits to what questions a computer system based on logic can answer. Turing suggests that humans are too often wrong themselves and pleased at the fallibility of a machine. (This argument would be made again by philosopher John Lucas in 1961 and physicist Roger Penrose in 1989, and later would be called Penrose–Lucas argument.) Argument From Consciousness: This argument, suggested by Professor Geoffrey Jefferson in his 1949 Lister Oration (acceptance speech for his 1948 award of Lister Medal) states that "not until a machine can write a sonnet or compose a concerto because of thoughts and emotions felt, and not by the chance fall of symbols, could we agree that machine equals brain." Turing replies by saying that we have no way of knowing that any individual other than ourselves experiences emotions, and that therefore we should accept the test. He adds, "I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness ... [b]ut I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question [of whether machines can think]." (This argument, that a computer can't have conscious experiences or understanding, would be made in 1980 by philosopher John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Turing's reply is now known as the "other minds reply". See also Can a machine have a mind? in the philosophy of AI.) Arguments from various disabilities. These arguments all have the form "a computer will never do X". Turing offers a selection:Be kind, resourceful, beautiful, friendly, have initiative, have a sense of humour, tell right from wrong, make mistakes, fall in love, enjo
AI takeover
An AI takeover is a theorized future event, often depicted in fiction, in which autonomous artificial intelligence systems acquire the capability to supersede human decisions. This could occur through economic manipulation, infrastructure control, or direct intervention, leading to de facto governance. Scenarios range from gradual economic dominance, as automation supplants the human workforce, up to a sudden or aggressive global takeover by a robot uprising or other forms of rogue AI. Stories of AI takeovers have been popular throughout science fiction. Commentators argue that recent advancements in the field have heightened concern about such scenarios. In public debate, prominent figures such as Stephen Hawking have advocated research into precautionary measures to ensure future superintelligent machines remain under human control. == Types == === Automation of the economy === The traditional consensus among economists has been that technological progress does not cause long-term unemployment. However, recent innovation in the fields of robotics and artificial intelligence has raised worries that human labor will become obsolete, leaving workers in some sectors without employment. Many small and medium-sized firms may also be forced to close if they cannot afford or license the latest robotic and AI technology, and may need to focus on areas or services that cannot easily be replaced for continued viability in the face of such technology. ==== Technologies that may displace workers ==== While these technologies have replaced some traditional workers, they also create new opportunities. Industries that are most susceptible to AI-driven automation include transportation, retail, and the military. AI military technologies, for example, can reduce risk by enabling remote operation. A study in 2024 highlights AI's ability to perform routine and repetitive tasks poses significant risks of job displacement, especially in sectors like manufacturing and administrative support. Author Dave Bond argues that as AI technologies continue to develop and expand, the relationship between humans and robots will change; they will become closely integrated in several aspects of life. AI will likely displace some workers while creating opportunities for new jobs in other sectors, especially in fields where tasks are repeatable. Researchers from Stanford's Digital Economy Lab reported in 2025 that since the widespread adoption of generative AI in late 2022, early-career workers (ages 22–25) in the most AI-exposed occupations have experienced a 13 percent relative decline in employment—even after controlling for firm-level shocks—while overall employment has continued to grow robustly. The study further finds that job losses are concentrated in roles where AI automates routine tasks, whereas occupations that leverage AI to augment human work have seen stable or increasing employment. ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing ==== Computer-integrated manufacturing uses computers to control the production process. This allows individual processes to exchange information with each other and initiate actions. Although manufacturing can be faster and less error-prone through the integration of computers, the main advantage is the ability to create automated manufacturing processes. Computer-integrated manufacturing is used in automotive, aviation, space, and shipbuilding industries. ==== White-collar machines ==== The 21st century has seen a variety of skilled tasks partially taken over by machines, including translation, legal research, and journalism. Care work, entertainment, and other tasks requiring empathy, previously thought safe from automation, are increasingly performed by robots and AI systems. ==== Autonomous cars ==== An autonomous car is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Many such vehicles are operational and others are being developed, with legislation rapidly expanding to allow their use. Obstacles to widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles have included concerns about the resulting loss of driving-related jobs in the road transport industry, and safety concerns. On March 18, 2018, a pedestrian was struck and killed in Tempe, Arizona by an Uber self-driving car. ==== AI-generated content ==== In the 2020s, automated content became more relevant due to technological advancements in AI models, such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, and Stable Diffusion. In most cases, AI-generated content such as imagery, literature, and music are produced through text prompts. These AI models are sometimes integrated into creative programs. AI-generated art may sample and conglomerate existing creative works, producing results that appear similar to human-made content. Low-quality AI-generated visual artwork can be informally referred to as AI slop. Some artists use a tool called Nightshade that alters images to make them detrimental to the training of text-to-image models if scraped without permission, while still looking normal to humans. AI-generated images are a potential tool for scammers and those looking to gain followers on social media, either to impersonate a famous individual or group or to monetize their audience. The New York Times has sued OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement related to the training and outputs of its AI models. === Eradication === Scientists such as Stephen Hawking are confident that superhuman artificial intelligence is physically possible, stating "there is no physical law precluding particles from being organised in ways that perform even more advanced computations than the arrangements of particles in human brains". According to Nick Bostrom, a superintelligent machine would not necessarily be motivated by the same emotional desire to collect power that often drives human beings but might rather treat power as a means toward attaining its ultimate goals; taking over the world would both increase its access to resources and help to prevent other agents from stopping the machine's plans. As a simplified example, a paperclip maximizer designed solely to create as many paperclips as possible would want to take over the world so that it can use all of the world's resources to create as many paperclips as possible, and, additionally, prevent humans from shutting it down or using those resources on things other than paperclips. There are debates on how realistic AI takeover scenarios are. According to a 2026 research paper, many of the arguments about existential risks are based on speculative assumptions about how intelligent AI systems could become, how they would behave and what goals they might develop over time. A 2023 Reuters/Ipsos survey showed that 61% of American adults feared AI could pose a threat to civilization. Philosopher Niels Wilde refutes the common thread that artificial intelligence inherently presents a looming threat to humanity, stating that these fears stem from perceived intelligence and lack of transparency in AI systems that more closely reflects the human aspects of it rather than those of a machine. AI alignment research studies how to design AI systems so that they follow intended objectives. == Debate == Physicist Stephen Hawking, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, and SpaceX founder Elon Musk have expressed concerns about the possibility that AI could develop to the point that humans could not control it, with Hawking theorizing that this could "spell the end of the human race". Stephen Hawking said in 2014 that "Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history. Unfortunately, it might also be the last, unless we learn how to avoid the risks." Hawking believed that in the coming decades, AI could offer "incalculable benefits and risks" such as "technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders, and developing weapons we cannot even understand." In January 2015, Nick Bostrom joined Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, Elon Musk, Lord Martin Rees, Jaan Tallinn, and numerous AI researchers in signing the Future of Life Institute's open letter speaking to the potential risks and benefits associated with artificial intelligence. The signatories "believe that research on how to make AI systems robust and beneficial is both important and timely, and that there are concrete research directions that can be pursued today." Some focus has been placed on the development of trustworthy AI. Three statements have been posed as to why AI is not inherently trustworthy: 1. An entity X is trustworthy only if X has the right motivations, goodwill and/or adheres to moral obligations towards the trustor; 2. AI systems lack motivations, goodwill, and moral obligations; 3. Therefore, AI systems cannot be trustworthy. There are additional considerations within this framework of trustworthy AI that go further into the fields of explainable artificial intelligence and respect for human privacy. Zanotti and colleagues
Flexidraw
Flexidraw is a 1985 graphics computer program published by Inkwell Systems. == Gameplay == Flexidraw is a graphics program that allows users to produce drawings using a light pen and print them. == Reception == Roy Wagner reviewed the product for Computer Gaming World, and stated that "Of the many graphics programs available Flexidraw is certainly the best supported by it's [sic] parent company."
Vehicle infrastructure integration
The Vehicle Infrastructure Integration (VII), also known as "Connected Roadways" or "vehicle-to-everything" (V2X) technology, is a United States Department of Transportation initiative that aims to improve road safety by developing technology that connects road vehicles with their environment. This development draws on several disciplines, including transport engineering, electrical engineering, automotive engineering, telematics, and computer science. Although VII specifically covers road transport, similar technologies are under development for other modes of transport. For example, airplanes may use ground-based beacons for automated guidance, allowing the autopilot to fly the plane without human intervention. == Goals == The goal of VII is to establish a communication link between vehicles (via On-Board Equipment, or OBE) and roadside infrastructure (via Roadside Equipment, or RSE) to enhance the safety, efficiency, and convenience of transportation systems. Two potential approaches are the widespread deployment of a dedicated short-range communications (DSRC) link on the 5.9GHz band, and cellular communication (C-V2X). Either of these methods would allow vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communication. The initiative has three priorities: Stakeholder evaluation and acceptance of the business model and its deployment schedule, Validation of the technology, with a focus on communications systems, in relation to deployment costs, and Creation of legal structures and policies, especially concerning digital privacy, to improve the system's long-term potential for success. === Safety === Current automotive safety technology relies primarily on vehicle-based radar, lidar, and sonar systems. This technology allows, for instance, a potential reduction in rear-end collisions by monitoring obstacles in front of or behind the vehicle and automatically applying the brakes when necessary. This technology, however, is limited by the sensing range of vehicle-based radar, particularly in angled and left-turn collisions, such as a motorist losing control of the vehicle during an impending head-on collision. The rear-end collisions addressed by current technology are generally less severe than angled, left-turn, or head-on collisions. VII promotes the development of a direct communication link between road vehicles and all other vehicles nearby, allowing for the exchange of information on vehicle speed and orientation or driver awareness and intent. This real-time exchange of information may enable more effective automated emergency maneuvers, such as steering, decelerating, or braking. In addition to nearby vehicle awareness, VII promotes a communication link between vehicles and roadway infrastructure. Such a link may allow for improved real-time traffic information, better queue management, and feedback to vehicles. Existing implementations of VII use vehicle-based sensors that can recognize and respond to roadway markings or signs, automatically adjusting vehicle parameters to follow the recognized instructions. However, this information may also be acquired via roadside beacons or stored in a centralized database accessible to all vehicles. === Efficiency === With a VII system in place, vehicles will be linked together. The headway between vehicles may therefore be reduced so that there is less empty space on the road, increasing the available capacity per lane. More capacity per lane will in turn imply fewer lanes in general, possibly satisfying the community's concerns about the impact of roadway widening. VII will enable precise traffic-signal coordination by tracking vehicle platoons and will benefit from accurate timing by drawing on real-time traffic data covering volume, density, and turning movements. Real-time traffic data can also be used in the design of new roadways or modification of existing systems as the data could be used to provide accurate origin-destination studies and turning-movement counts for uses in transportation forecasting and traffic operations. Such technology would also lead to improvements for transport engineers to address problems whilst reducing the cost of obtaining and compiling data. Tolling is another prospect for VII technology as it could enable roadways to be automatically tolled. Data could be collectively transmitted to road users for in-vehicle display, outlining the lowest cost, shortest distance, and/or fastest route to a destination on the basis of real-time conditions. === Existing applications === To some extent, results along these lines have been achieved in trials performed around the globe, making use of GPS, mobile phone signals, and vehicle registration plates. GPS is becoming standard in many new high-end vehicles and is an option on most new low- and mid-range vehicles. In addition, many users also have mobile phones that transmit trackable signals (and may also be GPS-enabled). Mobile phones can already be traced for purposes of emergency response. GPS and mobile phone tracking, however, do not provide fully reliable data. Furthermore, integrating mobile phones in vehicles may be prohibitively difficult. Data from mobile phones, though useful, might even increase risks to motorists as they tend to look at their phones rather than concentrate on their driving. Automatic registration plate recognition can provide large quantities of data, but continuously tracking a vehicle through a corridor is a difficult task with existing technology. Today's equipment is designed for data acquisition and functions such as enforcement and tolling, not for returning data to vehicles or motorists for response. GPS will nevertheless be one of the key components in VII systems. == Limitations == === Privacy === VII architecture is designed to prevent identification of individual vehicles, with all data exchange between the vehicle and the system occurring anonymously. Exchanges between the vehicles and third parties such as OEMs and toll collectors will occur, but the network traffic will be sent via encrypted tunnels and will therefore not be decipherable by the VII system. Data sharing with law enforcement or Homeland Security was not included in system design as of 2006. === Technical issues === ==== Coordination ==== A major issue facing the deployment of VII is the problem of how to set up the system initially. The costs associated with installing the technology in vehicles and providing communications and power at every intersection are significant. ==== Maintenance ==== Another factor for consideration in regard to the technology's distribution is how to update and maintain the units. Traffic systems are highly dynamic, with new traffic controls implemented every day and roadways constructed or repaired every year. The vehicle-based option could be updated via the internet (preferably wireless) but may subsequently require all users to have access to internet technology. Alternatively, if receivers were placed in all vehicles and the VII system was primarily located along the roadside, information could be stored in a centralized database. This would allow the agency responsible to issue updates at any time. These would then be disseminated to the roadside units for passing motorists. Operationally, this method is currently considered to provide the greatest effectiveness but at a high cost to the authorities. ==== Security ==== Security of the units is another concern, especially in light of the public acceptance issue. Criminals could tamper, remove, or destroy VII units regardless of whether they are installed inside vehicles or along the roadside. Magnets, electric shocks, and malicious software (viruses, hacking, or jamming) could be used to damage VII systems – regardless of whether units are located inside vehicle or along the roadside. == Recent developments == Much of the current research and experimentation is conducted in the United States where coordination is ensured through the Vehicle Infrastructure Integration Consortium; consisting of automobile manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Volkswagen, BMW), IT suppliers, U.S. Federal and state transportation departments, and professional associations. Trialing is taking place in Michigan and California. The specific applications now being developed under the U.S. initiative are: Warning drivers of unsafe conditions or imminent collisions. Warning drivers if they are about to run off the road or speed around a curve too fast. Informing system operators of real-time congestion, weather conditions and incidents. Providing operators with information on corridor capacity for real-time management, planning and provision of corridor-wide advisories to drivers. In mid-2007, a VII environment covering some 20 square miles (52 km2) near Detroit was used to test 20 prototype VII applications. Several automobile manufacturers are also conducting their own VII research and triali