Looking for the best AI code-review tool? An AI code-review tool is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it can save you hours every week by automating repetitive work. Most options offer a generous free tier, with paid plans unlocking higher limits, faster processing, and team features. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI code-review tool slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. This guide breaks down the top picks, their pros and cons, and who each one is best for.
Autonomous aircraft
An autonomous aircraft is an aircraft which flies under the control of on-board autonomous robotic systems and needs no intervention from a human pilot or remote control. Most contemporary autonomous aircraft are unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) with pre-programmed algorithms to perform designated tasks, but advancements in artificial intelligence technologies (e.g. machine learning) mean that autonomous control systems are reaching a point where several air taxis and associated regulatory regimes are being developed. == History == === Unmanned aerial vehicles === The earliest recorded use of an unmanned aerial vehicle for warfighting occurred in July 1849, serving as a balloon carrier (the precursor to the aircraft carrier) Significant development of radio-controlled drones started in the early 1900s, and originally focused on providing practice targets for training military personnel. The earliest attempt at a powered UAV was A. M. Low's "Aerial Target" in 1916. Autonomous features such as the autopilot and automated navigation were developed progressively through the twentieth century, although techniques such as terrain contour matching (TERCOM) were applied mainly to cruise missiles. Before the introduction of the Bayraktar Kızılelma some modern drones have a high degree of autonomy, although they were not fully capable and the regulatory environment prohibits their widespread use in civil aviation. However some limited trials had been undertaken. On December 17, 2025, two Bayraktar Kızılelma performed the world's first autonomous close-formation flight by two unmanned fighter jets, using artificial intelligence. This was the first time in the history of aviation when two unmanned aerial vehicles flew in close formation on their own. === Passengers === As flight, navigation and communications systems have become more sophisticated, safely carrying passengers has emerged as a practical possibility. Autopilot systems are relieving the human pilot of progressively more duties, but the pilot currently remains necessary. A number of air taxis are under development and larger autonomous transports are also being planned. The personal air vehicle is another class where from one to four passengers are not expected to be able to pilot the aircraft and autonomy is seen as necessary for widespread adoption. == Control system architecture == The computing capability of aircraft flight and navigation systems followed the advances of computing technology, beginning with analog controls and evolving into microcontrollers, then system-on-a-chip (SOC) and single-board computers (SBC). === Sensors === Position and movement sensors give information about the aircraft state. Exteroceptive sensors deal with external information like distance measurements, while proprioceptive ones correlate internal and external states. Degrees of freedom (DOF) refers to both the amount and quality of sensors on board: 6 DOF implies 3-axis gyroscopes and accelerometers (a typical inertial measurement unit – IMU), 9 DOF refers to an IMU plus a compass, 10 DOF adds a barometer and 11 DOF usually adds a GPS receiver. === Actuators === UAV actuators include digital electronic speed controllers (which control the RPM of the motors) linked to motors/engines and propellers, servomotors (for planes and helicopters mostly), weapons, payload actuators, LEDs and speakers. === Software === UAV software called the flight stack or autopilot. The purpose of the flight stack is to obtain data from sensors, control motors to ensure UAV stability, and facilitate ground control and mission planning communication. UAVs are real-time systems that require rapid response to changing sensor data. As a result, UAVs rely on single-board computers for their computational needs. Examples of such single-board computers include Raspberry Pis, Beagleboards, etc. shielded with NavIO, PXFMini, etc. or designed from scratch such as NuttX, preemptive-RT Linux, Xenomai, Orocos-Robot Operating System or DDS-ROS 2.0. Civil-use open-source stacks include: Due to the open-source nature of UAV software, they can be customized to fit specific applications. For example, researchers from the Technical University of Košice have replaced the default control algorithm of the PX4 autopilot. This flexibility and collaborative effort has led to a large number of different open-source stacks, some of which are forked from others, such as CleanFlight, which is forked from BaseFlight and from which three other stacks are forked from. === Loop principles === UAVs employ open-loop, closed-loop or hybrid control architectures. Open loop – This type provides a positive control signal (faster, slower, left, right, up, down) without incorporating feedback from sensor data. Closed loop – This type incorporates sensor feedback to adjust behavior (reduce speed to reflect tailwind, move to altitude 300 feet). The PID controller is common. Sometimes, feedforward is employed, transferring the need to close the loop further. == Communications == Most UAVs use a radio for remote control and exchange of video and other data. Early UAVs had only narrowband uplink. Downlinks came later. These bi-directional narrowband radio links carried command and control (C&C) and telemetry data about the status of aircraft systems to the remote operator. For very long range flights, military UAVs also use satellite receivers as part of satellite navigation systems. In cases when video transmission was required, the UAVs will implement a separate analog video radio link. In most modern autonomous applications, video transmission is required. A broadband link is used to carry all types of data on a single radio link. These broadband links can leverage quality of service techniques to optimize the C&C traffic for low latency. Usually, these broadband links carry TCP/IP traffic that can be routed over the Internet. Communications can be established with: Ground control – a military ground control station (GCS). The MAVLink protocol is increasingly becoming popular to carry command and control data between the ground control and the vehicle. Remote network system, such as satellite duplex data links for some military powers. Downstream digital video over mobile networks has also entered consumer markets, while direct UAV control uplink over the cellular mesh and LTE have been demonstrated and are in trials. Another aircraft, serving as a relay or mobile control station – military manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T). As mobile networks have increased in performance and reliability over the years, drones have begun to use mobile networks for communication. Mobile networks can be used for drone tracking, remote piloting, over the air updates, and cloud computing. Modern networking standards have explicitly considered autonomous aircraft and therefore include optimizations. The 5G standard has mandated reduced user plane latency to 1ms while using ultra-reliable and low-latency communications. == Autonomy == Basic autonomy comes from proprioceptive sensors. Advanced autonomy calls for situational awareness, knowledge about the environment surrounding the aircraft from exteroceptive sensors: sensor fusion integrates information from multiple sensors. Civil aviation regulators and standards bodies have published high-level roadmaps and discussion papers focused on assurance, safety and governance of AI-enabled systems in aviation, particularly as autonomy increases in operations and decision support. === Basic principles === One way to achieve autonomous control employs multiple control-loop layers, as in hierarchical control systems. As of 2016 the low-layer loops (i.e. for flight control) tick as fast as 32,000 times per second, while higher-level loops may cycle once per second. The principle is to decompose the aircraft's behavior into manageable "chunks", or states, with known transitions. Hierarchical control system types range from simple scripts to finite state machines, behavior trees and hierarchical task planners. The most common control mechanism used in these layers is the PID controller which can be used to achieve hover for a quadcopter by using data from the IMU to calculate precise inputs for the electronic speed controllers and motors. Examples of mid-layer algorithms: Path planning: determining an optimal path for vehicle to follow while meeting mission objectives and constraints, such as obstacles or fuel requirements Trajectory generation (motion planning): determining control maneuvers to take in order to follow a given path or to go from one location to another Trajectory regulation: constraining a vehicle within some tolerance to a trajectory Evolved UAV hierarchical task planners use methods like state tree searches or genetic algorithms. === Autonomy features === UAV manufacturers often build in specific autonomous operations, such as: Self-level: attitude stabilization on the pitch and roll axes. Altitude hold: The aircraft maint
Reason maintenance
Reason maintenance is a knowledge representation approach to efficient handling of inferred information that is explicitly stored. Reason maintenance distinguishes between base facts, which can be defeated, and derived facts. As such it differs from belief revision which, in its basic form, assumes that all facts are equally important. Reason maintenance was originally developed as a technique for implementing problem solvers. It encompasses a variety of techniques that share a common architecture: two components—a reasoner and a reason maintenance system—communicate with each other via an interface. The reasoner uses the reason maintenance system to record its inferences and justifications of ("reasons" for) the inferences. The reasoner also informs the reason maintenance system which are the currently valid base facts (assumptions). The reason maintenance system uses the information to compute the truth value of the stored derived facts and to restore consistency if an inconsistency is derived. == Truth maintenance system == A truth maintenance system, or TMS, is a knowledge representation method for representing both beliefs and their dependencies and an algorithm called the "truth maintenance algorithm" that manipulates and maintains the dependencies. The name truth maintenance is due to the ability of these systems to restore consistency. A truth maintenance system maintains consistency between old believed knowledge and current believed knowledge in the knowledge base (KB) through revision. If the current believed statements contradict the knowledge in the KB, then the KB is updated with the new knowledge. It may happen that the same data will again be believed, and the previous knowledge will be required in the KB. If the previous data are not present, but may be required for new inference. But if the previous knowledge was in the KB, then no retracing of the same knowledge is needed. The use of TMS avoids such retracing; it keeps track of the contradictory data with the help of a dependency record. This record reflects the retractions and additions which makes the inference engine (IE) aware of its current belief set. == Algorithm == Each statement having at least one valid justification is made a part of the current belief set. When a contradiction is found, the statement(s) responsible for the contradiction are identified and the records are appropriately updated. This process is called dependency-directed backtracking. The TMS algorithm maintains the records in the form of a dependency network. Each node in the network is an entry in the KB (a premise, antecedent, or inference rule etc.) Each arc of the network represent the inference steps through which the node was derived. A premise is a fundamental belief which is assumed to be true. They do not need justifications. The set of premises are the basis from which justifications for all other nodes will be derived. == Justification == There are two types of justification for a node. They are: Support list [SL] Conditional proof (CP) == Examples == Many kinds of truth maintenance systems exist. Two major types are single-context and multi-context truth maintenance. In single context systems, consistency is maintained among all facts in memory (KB) and relates to the notion of consistency found in classical logic. Multi-context systems support paraconsistency by allowing consistency to be relevant to a subset of facts in memory, a context, according to the history of logical inference. This is achieved by tagging each fact or deduction with its logical history. Multi-agent truth maintenance systems perform truth maintenance across multiple memories, often located on different machines. de Kleer's assumption-based truth maintenance system (ATMS, 1986) was utilized in systems based upon KEE on the Lisp Machine. The first multi-agent TMS was created by Mason and Johnson. It was a multi-context system. Bridgeland and Huhns created the first single-context multi-agent system.
Daniel Wolfe
Daniel Wolfe (born 1960) is an American activist, advocate, and writer whose work advances health programs and policy that balance scientific research and community expertise. His career has focused on support for community health movements, particularly among groups often regarded as criminal or socially suspect, including gay men and people who use illicit drugs. == Early life == Wolfe was raised between Arizona—including time on Rancho Linda Vista, a commune outside of Tucson—and East Hampton, NY. He received his undergraduate degree in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University, and following time studying Arabic in Egypt, worked as the junior ghostwriter on the autobiographies of First Lady of Egypt Jehan Sadat and Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Upon return to New York, he was an assistant at the Council on Foreign Relations to Richard W. Murphy, former US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs. Disagreement with US killing of Iraqi civilians during the 1990 Gulf War—and the rising toll of HIV in NY—moved Wolfe to leave Middle East studies and work full-time on AIDS in 1990. == Education == Wolfe was Community Scholar at the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Healthwhere he received his Masters in Public Health in 2004. He holds a Masters of Philosophy (in history) from Columbia University, and a BA in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University. He was the recipient of a Charles H. Revson Foundation fellowship for urban leaders who have made a substantial contribution to New York City, and a fellow at the Center for Arabic Studies Abroad in Cairo, Egypt. == AIDS and gay activism == Wolfe was part of the media committee for ACT UP’s 1998 action to seize control of the FDA, and helped organize ACT UP NY’s challenge to Governor Cuomo to do better on the AIDS response and other actions.Wolfe also joined ACT UP colleagues Gregg Bordowitz, David Barr, Richard Elovich, Jean Carlomusto and others to work at Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), the nation’s first AIDS organization, where he served as director of communications and spokesperson on issues including opposition to NY State cuts to the AIDS budget, the disclosure that Olympic Champion Greg Louganis had HIV, reports of the FBI spying on AIDS activists, and GMHC’s move to offer HIV testing and targeted support to those who were HIV-negative. Wolfe also continued cultural work, making art, performance and video as a member of the gay and lesbian collective GANG with artists and ACT UP members including Zoe Leonard, Suzanne Wright, Loring McAlpin, Wellington Love, Adam Rolston and others, and writing a biography of Lawrence of Arabia for a series for young adults on famous gay men and lesbians in history edited by Martin Duberman. Controversy followed, with North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms waving a GANG piece in an issue of the Movement Research Performance Journal on the floor of Congress to show the "rottenness" of publicly funded art, and a number of schools banning the biography series for young adults from their libraries. Wolfe and others challenged the move as continuing the longstanding and homophobic demand that notable gay men and lesbians stay silent about essential details of their private lives even while being celebrated for their professional achievements. == Gay health == The approval of antiretroviral therapy for HIV in 1996 opened up new space for discussions of gay health beyond HIV, and new directions for Wolfe. Working from hundreds of interviews, surveys, workshops, and with a team of writers, Wolfe was the author of Men Like Us, the Our Bodies, Ourselves-inspired GMHC Complete Guide to Gay Men’s Sexual, Physical, and Emotional Well-being, covering issues from spirituality to sexual health to aging. The move to frame gay health beyond condoms and pills—and to offer a guide to health that “did not need to be translated from the original heterosexual”—was part of a larger gay health movement encompassing wellness and pleasure, and focused less on health disparity than on individual and community resilience. Wolfe was a keynote speaker and workshop leader, along with Eric Rofes, Chris Bartlett, and other organizers, at the first National Gay Men’s Health Summit held in Boulder, Colorado in 2002. Awarded a Charles H. Revson Fellowship for urban leaders in the City of New York, Wolfe became a community scholar at Columbia University’s Center of History and Ethics of Public Health, where he received his MPH in 2003, and was a contributor to Searching Eyes: Privacy, the State, and Disease Surveillance in America. == International harm reduction == Wolfe was Director of International Harm Reduction Development at the Open Society Foundations (2005-2021) where he led grantmaking and advocacy to protect the health and rights of people who use drugs in Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas. Wolfe challenged approaches that conditioned support on abstinence or that sought to treat people who use illegal drugs like drugs themselves, as something to be controlled or contained. As with the gay health movement, he advocated a focus on community resilience and strengths, and on supporting individuals and communities to negotiate the balance between risk and pleasure of activities integral to life. Noting what he called the “antisocial behavior of health systems,” Wolfe’s analysis elevated issues such as forced labor and harsh punishment delivered in the name of addiction treatment and rehabilitation, the role of criminalization, imprisonment and stigma in interrupting or impeding HIV treatment, and the bias toward coercive approaches in studying and delivering addiction treatments. He also pointed to defects in national and international drug control policies and human rights violations as a root cause of HIV, hepatitis, and other health challenges faced by people who used drugs. Concrete advocacy supported by Open Society’s International Harm Reduction Development program under his direction included rebuffing US government efforts to force the UN to remove all references to harm reduction in its materials, addition of the addiction treatment medicines methadone and buprenorphine to the World Health Organization’s essential medicines list, and WHO endorsement of lay distribution of the opioid overdose antidote naloxone. Wolfe and OSF colleagues also advocated for new approaches to intellectual property and data sharing in research and development of medicines and vaccines to lower price and improve access to medicines globally to those in need. == AI and patient rights == Reports of patients denied opioid prescriptions based on an algorithm purporting to calculate their risk of overdose led Wolfe to work on AI, first as a resident at the Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio Center, and then as Executive Director of a new UCSF UC Berkeley program pioneering efforts to join AI, clinical and public health practice, and equity. In keeping with his earlier (analog) work on HIV, Wolfe has highlighted concerns about health systems using algorithms to gauge the merit of treatments for those regarded as socially suspect, the importance of moving beyond proprietary, black box algorithms toward an architecture of health data as a public good, and the need to maximize benefit for patients and communities, as well health systems, in the use of large language models.
Chinese room
The Chinese room argument holds that a computer executing a program cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was presented in a 1980 paper by the American philosopher John Searle, entitled "Minds, Brains, and Programs" and published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences. Similar arguments had been made previously by others, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Peter Winch, and Anatoly Dneprov. Searle's version has been widely discussed in the years since. The centerpiece of Searle's argument is a thought experiment known as the "Chinese room". The argument is directed against the philosophical positions of functionalism and computationalism, which hold that the mind may be viewed as an information-processing system operating on formal symbols, and that simulation of a given mental state is sufficient for its presence. Specifically, the argument is intended to refute a position Searle calls the strong AI hypothesis: "The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds." Although its proponents originally presented the argument in reaction to statements of artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, it is not an argument against the goals of mainstream AI research because it does not show a limit in the amount of intelligent behavior a machine can display. The argument applies only to digital computers running programs and does not apply to machines in general. While widely discussed, the argument has been subject to significant criticism and remains controversial among philosophers of mind and AI researchers. == Chinese room thought experiment == Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in programming a computer to behave as if it understands Chinese. The machine accepts Chinese characters as input, carries out each instruction of the program step by step, and then produces Chinese characters as output. The machine does this so perfectly that no one can tell that they are communicating with a machine and not a hidden Chinese speaker. The questions at issue are these: does the machine actually understand the conversation, or is it just simulating the ability to understand the conversation? Does the machine have a mind in exactly the same sense that people do, or is it just acting as if it had a mind? Now suppose that Searle is in a room with an English version of the program, along with sufficient pencils, paper, erasers and filing cabinets. Chinese characters are slipped in under the door, and he follows the program step-by-step, which eventually instructs him to slide other Chinese characters back out under the door. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows that Searle would do so as well, simply by running the program by hand. Searle can see no essential difference between the roles of the computer and himself in the experiment. Each simply follows a program, step-by-step, producing behavior that makes them appear to understand. However, Searle would not be able to understand the conversation. Therefore, he argues, it follows that the computer would not be able to understand the conversation either. Searle argues that, without "understanding" (or "intentionality"), we cannot describe what the machine is doing as "thinking" and, since it does not think, it does not have a "mind" in the normal sense of the word. Therefore, he concludes that the strong AI hypothesis is false: a computer running a program that simulates a mind would not have a mind in the same sense that human beings have a mind. == History == Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz made a similar argument in 1713 against mechanism, the idea that everything that makes up a human being could, in principle, be explained in mechanical terms—in other words, that a person, including their mind, is merely a very complex machine. Leibniz used the thought experiment of expanding the brain until it was the size of a mill. He found it difficult to imagine that a "mind" capable of "perception" could be constructed using only mechanical processes. British philosopher Peter Winch made the same point in his 1958 book The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, in which he argues that "a man who understands Chinese is not a man who has a firm grasp of the statistical probabilities for the occurrence of the various words in the Chinese language" (p. 108). Soviet cyberneticist Anatoly Dneprov made an essentially identical argument in 1961, in the form of his short story "The Game". In it, a stadium of people act as switches and memory cells implementing a program to translate a sentence from Portuguese, a language none of them know. The game was organized by a "Professor Zarubin" to answer the question "Can mathematical machines think?" Speaking through Zarubin, Dneprov writes that "the only way to prove that machines can think is to turn yourself into a machine and examine your thinking process", and he concludes, as Searle does, that "even the most perfect simulation of machine thinking is not the thinking process itself." In 1974, Lawrence H. Davis imagined duplicating the brain using telephone lines and offices staffed by people, and in 1978, Ned Block envisioned the entire population of China involved in such a brain simulation. This is known as the China brain thought experiment. Searle's version appeared in his 1980 article "Minds, Brains, and Programs", published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences. It eventually became the journal's "most influential target article", generating an enormous number of commentaries and responses in the ensuing decades, and Searle had continued to defend and refine the argument in multiple papers, popular articles, and books. David Cole writes that "the Chinese Room argument has probably been the most widely discussed philosophical argument in cognitive science to appear in the past 25 years". Most of the discussion consists of attempts to refute it. "The overwhelming majority", notes Behavioral and Brain Sciences editor Stevan Harnad, "still think that the Chinese Room Argument is dead wrong". The sheer volume of the literature that has grown up around it inspired Pat Hayes to comment that the field of cognitive science ought to be redefined as "the ongoing research program of showing Searle's Chinese Room Argument to be false". Searle's argument has become "something of a classic in cognitive science", according to Harnad. Varol Akman agrees, and has described the original paper as "an exemplar of philosophical clarity and purity". == Philosophy == Although the Chinese Room argument was originally presented in reaction to the statements of artificial intelligence researchers, philosophers have come to consider it as an important part of the philosophy of mind. It is a challenge to functionalism and the computational theory of mind, and is related to such questions as the mind–body problem, the problem of other minds, the symbol grounding problem, and the hard problem of consciousness. === Strong AI === Searle identified a philosophical position he calls "strong AI": The appropriately programmed computer with the right inputs and outputs would thereby have a mind in exactly the same sense human beings have minds. The definition depends on the distinction between simulating a mind and actually having one. Searle writes that "according to Strong AI, the correct simulation really is a mind. According to Weak AI, the correct simulation is a model of the mind." The claim is implicit in some of the statements of early AI researchers and analysts. For example, in 1957, the economist and psychologist Herbert A. Simon declared that "there are now in the world machines that think, that learn and create". Simon, together with Allen Newell and Cliff Shaw, after having completed the first program that could do formal reasoning (the Logic Theorist), claimed that they had "solved the venerable mind–body problem, explaining how a system composed of matter can have the properties of mind." John Haugeland wrote that "AI wants only the genuine article: machines with minds, in the full and literal sense. This is not science fiction, but real science, based on a theoretical conception as deep as it is daring: namely, we are, at root, computers ourselves." Searle also ascribes the following claims to advocates of strong AI: AI systems can be used to explain the mind; The study of the brain is irrelevant to the study of the mind; and The Turing test is adequate for establishing the existence of mental states. === Strong AI as computationalism or functionalism === In more recent presentations of the Chinese room argument, Searle has identified "strong AI" as "computer functionalism" (a term he attributes to Daniel Dennett). Functionalism is a position in modern philosophy of mind that holds that we can define menta
POP-11
POP-11 is a reflective, incrementally compiled programming language with many of the features of an interpreted language. It is the core language of the Poplog programming environment developed originally by the University of Sussex, and recently in the School of Computer Science at the University of Birmingham, which hosts the main Poplog website. POP-11 is an evolution of the language POP-2, developed in Edinburgh University, and features an open stack model (like Forth, among others). It is mainly procedural, but supports declarative language constructs, including a pattern matcher, and is mostly used for research and teaching in artificial intelligence, although it has features sufficient for many other classes of problems. It is often used to introduce symbolic programming techniques to programmers of more conventional languages like Pascal, who find POP syntax more familiar than that of Lisp. One of POP-11's features is that it supports first-class functions. POP-11 is the core language of the Poplog system. The availability of the compiler and compiler subroutines at run-time (a requirement for incremental compiling) gives it the ability to support a far wider range of extensions (including run-time extensions, such as adding new data-types) than would be possible using only a macro facility. This made it possible for (optional) incremental compilers to be added for Prolog, Common Lisp and Standard ML, which could be added as required to support either mixed language development or development in the second language without using any POP-11 constructs. This made it possible for Poplog to be used by teachers, researchers, and developers who were interested in only one of the languages. The most successful product developed in POP-11 was the Clementine data mining system, developed by ISL. After SPSS bought ISL, they renamed Clementine to SPSS Modeler and decided to port it to C++ and Java, and eventually succeeded with great effort, and perhaps some loss of the flexibility provided by the use of an AI language. POP-11 was for a time available only as part of an expensive commercial package (Poplog), but since about 1999 it has been freely available as part of the open-source software version of Poplog, including various added packages and teaching libraries. An online version of ELIZA using POP-11 is available at Birmingham. At the University of Sussex, David Young used POP-11 in combination with C and Fortran to develop a suite of teaching and interactive development tools for image processing and vision, and has made them available in the Popvision extension to Poplog. == Simple code examples == Here is an example of a simple POP-11 program: define Double(Source) -> Result; Source2 -> Result; enddefine; Double(123) => That prints out: 246 This one includes some list processing: define RemoveElementsMatching(Element, Source) -> Result; lvars Index; [[% for Index in Source do unless Index = Element or Index matches Element then Index; endunless; endfor; %]] -> Result; enddefine; RemoveElementsMatching("the", [[the cat sat on the mat]]) => ;;; outputs [[cat sat on mat]] RemoveElementsMatching("the", [[the cat] [sat on] the mat]) => ;;; outputs [[the cat] [sat on] mat] RemoveElementsMatching([[= cat]], [[the cat]] is a [[big cat]]) => ;;; outputs [[is a]] Examples using the POP-11 pattern matcher, which makes it relatively easy for students to learn to develop sophisticated list-processing programs without having to treat patterns as tree structures accessed by 'head' and 'tail' functions (CAR and CDR in Lisp), can be found in the online introductory tutorial. The matcher is at the heart of the SimAgent (sim_agent) toolkit. Some of the powerful features of the toolkit, such as linking pattern variables to inline code variables, would have been very difficult to implement without the incremental compiler facilities.
No Fakes Act
The NO FAKES Act or the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act, is proposed United States federal legislation concerning digital replicas. The bill was first introduced in 2023 as a discussion draft, formally introduced in 2024, and reintroduced in 2025. If enacted, the bill would establish a federal right of publicity, giving public figures and private individuals greater control over the creation and use of digital replicas of their likenesses, including artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content. If passed, the NO FAKES Act would create a legal framework for licensing digital replicas, including provisions for liability, safe harbors, and statutory exceptions. The proposal has received broad support from the entertainment and technology industries. However, digital rights organizations have raised concerns that the Act risks chilling protected speech. == Background == === Entertainment industry concerns === Actors’ concerns over studios' use of their digital likeness were one of the primary drivers of the Screen Actors Guild–American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) strike in 2023. Negotiators for SAG-AFTRA alleged that the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) sought to use the digital likenesses of actors in perpetuity and would try to replace union members, especially background actors. The AMPTP denied SAG-AFTRA's interpretation of its proposal. In November 2023, AMPTP and SAG-AFTRA reached an agreement on the use of actors’ digital replicas, which included requirements for consent and compensation. Recording labels have also expressed concerns over unauthorized digital replicas of their performers' likeness. In 2023, TikTok user Ghostwriter977 released "Heart on My Sleeve," an AI-produced song in the styles of Drake and the Weeknd. After the song received millions of streams, the Universal Music Group (UMG) initiated takedown requests to TikTok and YouTube, which removed the song from their platforms. The legal arguments attorneys made were not disclosed; however, commentators noted that they likely used the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). This presented a novel scenario, since UMG did not have licensing rights to "Heart on My Sleeve." According to The Verge, UMG based its DMCA takedown request on an unauthorized sample used at the start of the song for the producer tag. While legal commentators noted that UMG could have asserted a violation of the artists’ rights of publicity, existing state right of publicity laws do not provide notice-and-takedown mechanisms comparable to those under the DMCA. === Legal landscape === Legal scholars have observed that AI-generated digital replicas raise questions under existing copyright and intellectual property law. U.S. copyright law generally requires that original authorship be attributable to a human; however, the extent of human intervention needed to satisfy this requirement is not clear. Copyright holders have filed lawsuits against AI companies alleging unauthorized usage of copyrighted material to train their models, though many of these cases remain pending. In terms of outputs, record labels often hold rights to artists’ musical works but do not necessarily control the artists’ voice, appearance, or likeness in the same way. As a result, AI-generated recordings such as "Heart on My Sleeve" may fall outside the scope of certain traditional copyright protections. Individuals' likenesses have historically been governed under the Lanham Act, the Federal Trade Commission Act, and right of publicity laws. The right of publicity, recognized in many state-level statutes and common law, allows individuals to bring legal claims against unauthorized commercial use of their identities. It has often, but not exclusively, been applied to celebrities or other recognizable individuals. There is no federal-level right to publicity, and state-level protections vary, especially on issues relating to digital replicas and posthumous rights, which makes it difficult for creators or other individuals to prevent unauthorized use of their likenesses. In July 2024, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report on digital replicas and recommended that Congress create a federal law to protect individuals from unauthorized uses of their digital replicas, noting the inadequacy, narrowness, and inconsistency of existing laws. == Provisions == Under the NO FAKES Act of 2025, a digital replica is defined as "a newly created, computer-generated, highly realistic electronic representation that is readily identifiable as the voice or visual likeness of an individual," living or dead. A digital replica can be embodied in sound recordings, images, or audiovisual works in which the individual did not perform or in which the individual did perform but the "fundamental character of the performance or appearance has been materially altered." The Act specifies that digital replicas do not include reproduced samples of works authorized by the copyright holder. The Act defines a "right holder" as either the individual who is the subject of a digital replica or an entity that has acquired the rights to that individual’s likeness. The Act grants right holders the exclusive right to authorize the use of an individual’s likeness in a digital replica. This right is not assignable during the individual’s lifetime; however, it can be licensed to a living individual for up to 10 years under certain conditions. Postmortem rights The Act provides that the right does not automatically expire upon an individual’s death. It may be transferred to executors, heirs, or other parties designated by the individual. The right is held by the right holder for 10 years following the individual’s death. If the right holder demonstrates active use of the digital replica within the 2 years preceding the end of the 10-year term, the right may be extended for an additional 5-year period. These five-year extensions may be renewed for up to 70 years after the individual’s death. Liability The Act establishes liability for individuals who knowingly distribute a digital replica without authorization from the right holder, as well as for entities that make available a service primarily designed to produce unlawful digital replicas. Safe harbor provisions Similar to the Communications Decency Act and the DMCA, the Act establishes safe harbor provisions for online service providers. Providers are shielded from liability if they adopt and inform users of a policy for terminating accounts that repeatedly violate the Act. The NO FAKES Act does not require online services to proactively monitor content. Instead, it creates a notice-and-takedown mechanism under which providers must promptly respond to notifications seeking the removal of unauthorized digital replicas. These safe harbor protections apply only if the online service provider designates an agent with the U.S. Copyright Office to receive notifications of alleged violations. Remedies The NO FAKES Act provides remedies that are similar to those available under U.S. copyright law. Under the Act, individuals may be held liable for either statutory damages of $5,000 or actual damages for creating or distributing an unauthorized digital replica. The legislation also establishes a tiered liability framework for online service providers. Those that make good faith efforts to comply with the Act may face statutory damages of up to $25,000 per work for violations or actual damages. Providers that do not undertake such compliance efforts may be liable for $5,000 per unauthorized display or transmission of a digital replica, with damages capped at $750,000 per work. Exclusions The Act includes several exceptions to liability that are modeled in part on fair use principles. Digital replicas are excluded from liability when "used in a bona fide news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account;" in a documentary or historical context; or in a way that is "consistent with the public interest." These exclusions do not apply to de minimis uses or to digital replicas that are sexually explicit in nature. The Act further states that licensing requirements do not apply to licenses established through collective bargaining agreements that contain provisions governing the use of digital replicas. The Act does not impose secondary liability on providers of generative artificial intelligence tools or services whose primary purpose is not the creation of unauthorized digital replicas. Preemption The NO FAKES Act preempts laws that protect "an individual's voice and visual likeness rights in connection with a digital replica, as defined in this Act, in an expressive work." However, the Act preserves state laws governing digital replicas enacted before January 2, 2025, as well as state laws addressing digital replicas that portray sexually explicit conduct. == History == In 2023, Senators Marsha Blackburn, Chris Coons, Amy Klobuchar, and Th