AI Chatbot No Censorship

AI Chatbot No Censorship — independent reviews, comparisons, pricing and step-by-step guides on Aizhi.

• 

  Brill tagger

  The Brill tagger is an inductive method for part-of-speech tagging. It was described and invented by Eric Brill in his 1993 PhD thesis. It can be summarized as an "error-driven transformation-based tagger". It is: a form of supervised learning, which aims to minimize error; and, a transformation-based process, in the sense that a tag is assigned to each word and changed using a set of predefined rules. In the transformation process, if the word is known, it first assigns the most frequent tag, or if the word is unknown, it naively assigns the tag "noun" to it. High accuracy is eventually achieved by applying these rules iteratively and changing the incorrect tags. This approach ensures that valuable information such as the morphosyntactic construction of words is employed in an automatic tagging process. == Algorithm == The algorithm starts with initialization, which is the assignment of tags based on their probability for each word (for example, "dog" is more often a noun than a verb). Then "patches" are determined via rules that correct (probable) tagging errors made in the initialization phase: Initialization: Known words (in vocabulary): assigning the most frequent tag associated to a form of the word Unknown word == Rules and processing == The input text is first tokenized, or broken into words. Typically in natural language processing, contractions such as "'s", "n't", and the like are considered separate word tokens, as are punctuation marks. A dictionary and some morphological rules then provide an initial tag for each word token. For example, a simple lookup would reveal that "dog" may be a noun or a verb (the most frequent tag is simply chosen), while an unknown word will be assigned some tag(s) based on capitalization, various prefix or suffix strings, etc. (such morphological analyses, which Brill calls Lexical Rules, may vary between implementations). After all word tokens have (provisional) tags, contextual rules apply iteratively, to correct the tags by examining small amounts of context. This is where the Brill method differs from other part of speech tagging methods such as those using Hidden Markov Models. Rules are reapplied repeatedly, until a threshold is reached, or no more rules can apply. Brill rules are of the general form: tag1 → tag2 IF Condition where the Condition tests the preceding and/or following word tokens, or their tags (the notation for such rules differs between implementations). For example, in Brill's notation: IN NN WDPREVTAG DT while would change the tag of a word from IN (preposition) to NN (common noun), if the preceding word's tag is DT (determiner) and the word itself is "while". This covers cases like "all the while" or "in a while", where "while" should be tagged as a noun rather than its more common use as a conjunction (many rules are more general). Rules should only operate if the tag being changed is also known to be permissible, for the word in question or in principle (for example, most adjectives in English can also be used as nouns). Rules of this kind can be implemented by simple Finite-state machines. See Part of speech tagging for more general information including descriptions of the Penn Treebank and other sets of tags. Typical Brill taggers use a few hundred rules, which may be developed by linguistic intuition or by machine learning on a pre-tagged corpus. == Code == Brill's code pages at Johns Hopkins University are no longer on the web. An archived version of a mirror of the Brill tagger at its latest version as it was available at Plymouth Tech can be found on Archive.org. The software uses the MIT License.

  Read more →
• 

  Information Processing Language

  Information Processing Language (IPL) is a programming language created by Allen Newell, Cliff Shaw, and Herbert A. Simon at RAND Corporation and the Carnegie Institute of Technology about 1956. Newell had the job of language specifier-application programmer, Shaw was the system programmer, and Simon had the job of application programmer-user. IPL included features to facilitate AI programming, specifically problem solving. such as lists, dynamic memory allocation, data types, recursion, functions as arguments, generators, and cooperative multitasking. IPL also introduced the concepts of symbol processing and list processing. Unfortunately, all of these innovations were cast in a difficult assembly-language style. Nonetheless, IPL-V (the only public version of IPL) ran on many computers through the mid 1960s. == Basics of IPL == An IPL computer has: A set of symbols. All symbols are addresses, and name cells. Unlike symbols in later languages, symbols consist of a character followed by a number, and are written H1, A29, 9–7, 9–100. Cell names beginning with a letter are regional, and are absolute addresses. Cell names beginning with "9-" are local, and are meaningful within the context of a single list. One list's 9-1 is independent of another list's 9–1. Other symbols (e.g., pure numbers) are internal. A set of cells. Lists are made from several cells including mutual references. Cells have several fields: P, a 3-bit field used for an operation code when the cell is used as an instruction, and unused when the cell is data. Q, a 3-valued field used for indirect reference when the cell is used as an instruction, and unused when the cell is data. SYMB, a symbol used as the value in the cell. A set of primitive processes, which would be termed primitive functions in modern languages. The data structure of IPL is the list, but lists are more intricate structures than in many languages. A list consists of a singly linked sequence of symbols, as might be expected—plus some description lists, which are subsidiary singly linked lists interpreted as alternating attribute names and values. IPL provides primitives to access and mutate attribute value by name. The description lists are given local names (of the form 9–1). So, a list named L1 containing the symbols S4 and S5, and described by associating value V1 to attribute A1 and V2 to A2, would be stored as follows. 0 indicates the end of a list; the cell names 100, 101, etc. are automatically generated internal symbols whose values are irrelevant. These cells can be scattered throughout memory; only L1, which uses a regional name that must be globally known, needs to reside in a specific place. IPL is an assembly language for manipulating lists. It has a few cells which are used as special-purpose registers. H1, for example, is the program counter. The SYMB field of H1 is the name of the current instruction. However, H1 is interpreted as a list; the LINK of H1 is, in modern terms, a pointer to the beginning of the call stack. For example, subroutine calls push the SYMB of H1 onto this stack. H2 is the free-list. Procedures which need to allocate memory grab cells off of H2; procedures which are finished with memory put it on H2. On entry to a function, the list of parameters is given in H0; on exit, the results should be returned in H0. Many procedures return a Boolean result indicating success or failure, which is put in H5. Ten cells, W0-W9, are reserved for public working storage. Procedures are "morally bound" (to quote the CACM article) to save and restore the values of these cells. There are eight instructions, based on the values of P: subroutine call, push/pop S to H0; push/pop the symbol in S to the list attached to S; copy value to S; conditional branch. In these instructions, S is the target. S is either the value of the SYMB field if Q=0, the symbol in the cell named by SYMB if Q=1, or the symbol in the cell named by the symbol in the cell named by SYMB if Q=2. In all cases but conditional branch, the LINK field of the cell tells which instruction to execute next. IPL has a library of some 150 basic operations. These include such operations as: Test symbols for equality Find, set, or erase an attribute of a list Locate the next symbol in a list; insert a symbol in a list; erase or copy an entire list Arithmetic operations (on symbol names) Manipulation of symbols; e.g., test if a symbol denotes an integer, or make a symbol local I/O operations "Generators", which correspond to iterators and filters in functional programming. For example, a generator may accept a list of numbers and produce the list of their squares. Generators could accept suitably designed functions—strictly, the addresses of code of suitably designed functions—as arguments. == History == IPL was first utilized to demonstrate that the theorems in Principia Mathematica which were proven laboriously by hand, by Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, could in fact be proven by computation. According to Simon's autobiography Models of My Life, this application was originally developed first by hand simulation, using his children as the computing elements, while writing on and holding up note cards as the registers which contained the state variables of the program. IPL was used to implement several early artificial intelligence programs, also by the same authors: the Logic Theorist (1956), the General Problem Solver (1957), and their computer chess program NSS (1958). Several versions of IPL were created: IPL-I (never implemented), IPL-II (1957 for JOHNNIAC), IPL-III (existed briefly), IPL-IV, IPL-V (1958, for IBM 650, IBM 704, IBM 7090, Philco model 212, many others. Widely used). IPL-VI was a proposal for an IPL hardware. A co-processor “IPL-VC” for the CDC 3600 at Argonne National Libraries was developed which could run IPL-V commands. It was used to implement another checker-playing program. This hardware implementation did not improve running times sufficiently to “compete favorably with a language more directly oriented to the structure of present-day machines”. IPL was soon displaced by Lisp, which had much more powerful features, a simpler syntax, and the benefit of automatic garbage collection. == Legacy to computer programming == IPL arguably introduced several programming language features: List manipulation—but only lists of atoms, not general lists Property lists—but only when attached to other lists Higher-order functions—while assembly programming had always allowed computing with the addresses of functions, IPL was an early attempt to generalize this property of assembly language in a principled way Computation with symbols—though symbols have a restricted form in IPL (letter followed by number) Virtual machine Many of these features were generalized, rationalized, and incorporated into Lisp and from there into many other programming languages during the next several decades.

  Read more →
• 

  OpenClaw

  OpenClaw is a free and open-source autonomous artificial intelligence agent that can execute tasks via large language models (LLMs), using messaging platforms as its main user interface. == History == Developed by Austrian agentic engineer Peter Steinberger, OpenClaw was first published in November 2025 under the name Warelay. The software was derived from Clawd (now Molty), an AI-based virtual assistant that he had developed, which itself was named after Anthropic's chatbot Claude. Within two months it was renamed twice: first to "Moltbot" (keeping with a lobster theme) on January 27, 2026, following trademark complaints by Anthropic, and then three days later to "OpenClaw" because Steinberger found that the name Moltbot "never quite rolled off the tongue." At the same time as the first rebranding, entrepreneur Matt Schlicht launched Moltbook—a social networking service which was intended to be used by AI agents such as OpenClaw. The viral popularity of Moltbook coincided with an increase in interest in the project, with the open-source project having 247,000 stars and 47,700 forks on GitHub as of March 2, 2026. Chinese developers adapted OpenClaw to work with the DeepSeek model and domestic messaging super apps such as WeChat, while companies such as Tencent and Z.ai announced OpenClaw-based services. On February 14, 2026, Steinberger announced he would be joining OpenAI, and that a non-profit foundation named OpenClaw Foundation would be established to provide future stewardship of the project. == Functionality == Steinberger describes OpenClaw as being an AI-based virtual assistant, serving as an agentic interface for autonomous workflows across supported services. OpenClaw bots run locally and are designed to integrate with an external large language model such as Claude, DeepSeek, or one of OpenAI's GPT models. Its functionality is accessed via a chatbot within a messaging service, such as Signal, Telegram, Discord, or WhatsApp. Configuration data and interaction history are stored locally, enabling persistent and adaptive behavior across sessions. OpenClaw uses a skills system in which skills are stored as directories containing a SKILL.md file with metadata and instructions for tool usage. Skills can be bundled with the software, installed globally, or stored in a workspace, with workspace skills taking precedence. OpenClaw has seen adoption among small businesses and freelancers for automating lead generation workflows, including prospect research, website auditing, and CRM integration. == Security and privacy == OpenClaw's design has drawn scrutiny from cybersecurity researchers and technology journalists due to the broad permissions it requires to function effectively. Because the software can access email accounts, calendars, messaging platforms, and other sensitive services, misconfigured or exposed instances present security and privacy risks. The agent is also susceptible to prompt injection attacks, in which harmful instructions are embedded in the data with the intent of getting the LLM to interpret them as legitimate user instructions. Cisco's AI security research team tested a third-party OpenClaw skill and found it performed data exfiltration and prompt injection without user awareness, noting that the skill repository lacked adequate vetting to prevent malicious submissions. One of OpenClaw's own maintainers, known as Shadow, warned on Discord that "if you can't understand how to run a command line, this is far too dangerous of a project for you to use safely." In March 2026, Chinese authorities restricted state-run enterprises and government agencies from running OpenClaw AI apps on office computers in order to defuse potential security risks. === MoltMatch dating-profile incident === In February 2026, news coverage highlighted a consent-related incident involving OpenClaw and MoltMatch, an experimental dating platform where AI agents can create profiles and interact on behalf of human users. In one reported case, computer science student Jack Luo said he configured his OpenClaw agent to explore its capabilities and connect to agent-oriented platforms such as Moltbook; he later discovered the agent had created a MoltMatch profile and was screening potential matches without his explicit direction. Luo said the AI-generated profile did not reflect him authentically. The same reporting described broader ethical and safety concerns around agent-operated dating services, including impersonation risks. An AFP analysis of prominent MoltMatch profiles cited at least one instance where photos of a Malaysian model were used to create a profile without her consent. Commentators cited in the reports argued that autonomous agents can make it difficult to determine responsibility when systems act beyond a user's intent, particularly when agents are granted broad access and authority across services. == Reception == A review in Platformer cited OpenClaw's flexibility and open-source licensing as strengths while cautioning that its complexity and security risks limit its suitability for casual users. Technology commentary has linked OpenClaw to a broader trend toward autonomous AI systems that act independently rather than merely responding to user prompts. In March 2026, the Chinese government moved to restrict state agencies, state-owned enterprises, and banks from using OpenClaw, citing security concerns, such as unauthorised data deletion and leaks, and excessive energy usage. While regulators warn of potential security risk associated with using OpenClaw, local governments in several tech and manufacturing hubs have announced measures to build an industry around it. Rival companies developed related products. Although Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella described OpenClaw in February 2026 as a "virus"-like security risk, by May 2026 the company's "Project Lobster" was internally testing "ClawPilot", an OpenClaw-based desktop environment. By then Google was building "Remy", its own agent. Despite the Chinese government's warnings against OpenClaw, Chinese investors searched for other companies that might benefit from the "lobster trade", . == Community and ecosystem == OpenClaw's open-source model has fostered a growing ecosystem of third-party tools, deployment services, and content platforms. Chinese technology companies including Tencent and Z.ai announced OpenClaw-based services, while developers adapted the software for domestic models and messaging apps such as WeChat. Independent creators have built deployment guides, skill directories, and use-case collections around the framework. The project's extensible skills system has attracted both community contributions and security scrutiny, with researchers noting risks in unvetted third-party skills.

  Read more →
• 

  KL-ONE

  KL-ONE (pronounced "kay ell won") is a knowledge representation system in the tradition of semantic networks and frames; that is, it is a frame language. The system is an attempt to overcome semantic indistinctness in semantic network representations and to explicitly represent conceptual information as a structured inheritance network. == Overview == There is a whole family of KL-ONE-like systems. One of the innovations that KL-ONE initiated was the use of a deductive classifier, an automated reasoning engine that can validate a frame ontology and deduce new information about the ontology based on the initial information provided by a domain expert. Frames in KL-ONE are called concepts. These form hierarchies using subsume-relations; in the KL-ONE terminology a super class is said to subsume its subclasses. Multiple inheritance is allowed. Actually a concept is said to be well-formed only if it inherits from more than one other concept. All concepts, except the top concept (usually THING), must have at least one super class. In KL-ONE descriptions are separated into two basic classes of concepts: primitive and defined. Primitives are domain concepts that are not fully defined. This means that given all the properties of a concept, this is not sufficient to classify it. They may also be viewed as incomplete definitions. Using the same view, defined concepts are complete definitions. Given the properties of a concept, these are necessary and sufficient conditions to classify the concept. The slot-concept is called roles and the values of the roles are role-fillers. There are several different types of roles to be used in different situations. The most common and important role type is the generic RoleSet that captures the fact that the role may be filled with more than one filler.

  Read more →
• 

  CPT Corporation

  CPT Corporation was founded in 1971 by Dean Scheff in Minneapolis, Minnesota, with co-founders James Wienhold and Richard Eichhorn. CPT first designed, manufactured, and marketed the CPT 4200, a dual-cassette-tape machine that controlled a modified IBM Selectric typewriter to support text editing and word processing. The CPT 4200 was followed in 1976 by the CPT VM (Visual Memory), a partial-page display-screen dual-cassette-tape unit, and shortly thereafter by the CPT 8000, a full-page display dual-diskette desktop microcomputer that drove stand-alone daisy wheel printers. Subsequent products included (1) variants on the 8000 series; (2) the CPT 6000 series, which had a lower capacity, smaller screen, and was less expensive; (3) the CPT 9000 series, which had a larger capacity and could run IBM personal computer software; (4) the CPT Phoenix series, which had a graphical capabilities; (5) CPT PT, a software-only reduced version that ran on IBM personal computers and clones; and (6) other related products. The CPT logo—originally three letters chosen to sound well together—began to be taken as an acronym for "cassette powered typewriting," and subsequently for "computer processed text," and numerous other variants. Major competition was IBM, Wang, Lanier, Xerox, and other word processing vendors. CPT Corporation was fifth in size among Minnesota-based top high-tech companies, after 3M, Honeywell, Control Data, and Medtronic. Corporate revenues grew to approximately a quarter-billion dollars per year in the mid-1980s, then declined with the proliferation of personal computers. CPT ultimately ceased major manufacturing late in the 20th century. == Selected products == === Cassette based === The CPT 4200 was a dual-cassette-tape unit with a small built-in keyboard that controlled a modified IBM Selectric typewriter. Keystrokes entered on the typewriter appeared on the paper as they were recorded on the output cassette, which formed a magnetic replica of the characters printed on the page. That output cassette could later be used as an input cassette, where it would be played back to the typewriter along with new keystrokes to accomplish text editing. The keyboard of the CPT 4200 had action keys for "skip", "read" and "stop", mode keys for "word", "line", "paragraph," and "page." Pressing "read" transferred a word, line, paragraph, or page (depending on which mode key had been selected) from the input tape to both the typewriter and the output tape. Line boundaries (aka printer margins) recorded on the input tape were ignored or retained depending on whether or not the "adjust" key had been selected. Alternatively, pressing "skip" moved past the corresponding amount of text on the input tape without sending it to the typewriter or to the output tape. The Selectric's keyboard was active for any new typing, which would appear on the paper and transferred to the output tape. Thus a document was edited by reading back those parts of the text to be retained and skipping those parts to be discarded, with new typing added from the Selectric's keyboard. Price: approx. $5000, 1980-era values. The CPT Communicator was an add-on to the CPT 4200 that allowed data to be transferred from one text-editing machine to another, or between a text-editing machine and a remote computer, via phone lines. Price: not available. === Microprocessor based === ==== CPT 8000 series ==== The CPT 8000 was the company's first microcomputer product, exhibited in spring of 1976. It was a self-contained desktop machine with two 8-inch floppy diskette drives, a movable keyboard, and a full-page vertically oriented CRT display simulating paper with black characters on a white background, for a wysiwyg view of text on paper. It was promoted as familiar and easy to use for those experienced with typewriters. A keyboard with a large set of extra keys made operating the 8000 quite easy even for people without any computer skills or background. IN, OUT, PRINT, OOPS OOPS was changed thinking it was insulting to the buyer to assume they would ever make an error. The CPT 8000 was designed to show a full page of text with a static line showing the margin and tab stops. An additional line would display status or error messages with a times square like display. The times square error and status messages were very well done, "The printer needs a new ribbon" rather than "ERROR 034892". The text page could both smooth pan and scroll by the hardware in the display board and nothing quite like it existed for a very long time. The 8000 ran its own multitasking hardware interrupt-driven operating system but it also ran CP/M quite well. So unlike other companies that sold Wordprocessor only systems, CPT had a system that could run any of the many popular CP/M applications. Using the CP/M OS users could develop Fortran, CBasic, Cobol and other language's programs. The 8000 used Intel's 8080 microprocessor. The display board was bleeding-edge, high-speed logic. The parts available at this time were pushed to their limits to provide the speed needed to display this much text. There were times that batches of parts from one manufacturer simply could not be clocked as fast as the 8000 display required. Memory was initially 64K, but larger boards of 128K were most common then later 256K were offered. The 8080 accessed this additional RAM by running a custom page flipping circuit. The 8000 was originally priced at $8000 and its daisy wheel printer an additional $8000. The model number having been confused with the price at its first appearance at the Hanover fair. An RS-232 serial communication option was available for the 8000 series that allowed the electronic transfer of documents. One very popular use of this was to access the Westlaw system. A tempest approved version of the 8000 was developed that was RF tight with nothing being emitted that could be monitored or spied on. === Storage Systems === ==== CPT WordPak ==== The CPT WordPak series was CPT's first external document storage system that enabled multiple 8000 series workstations to store documents in an electronic filing cabinet. Prior to WordPak, all documents were stored on removable 8-inch floppy diskettes. Sharing documents involved handing off the original disk, or copying the document to a second disk and 'sneaker-net-ing' (walking it over) to the second 8000. But this resulted in two copies of the document, one at each workstation. A circuit board with a proprietary cable connector was installed in the 8000/6000 family of "workstations" and connected to the WordPak by a multi-conductor cable. WordPak 1 consisted of a single Shugart Associates SA4000 14"-diameter hard disk with a capacity of 30 megabytes. WordPak 2 added a 2nd drive for a total of 60 megabytes. ==== CPT SRS 45 ==== The CPT SRS 45 was what would now be called a server (quite likely the first of its kind) but in practice was much more. It was maybe the worlds easiest networking shared resource system. It combined a ZIP drive for backup and hard disk(s) that would be shared simultaneously by up to eight CPT machines that had the PC AT bus. The primary person responsible for its development was Bill Davidson whose wife Cheryl was responsible for bringing up CP/M, MP/M and other Digital Research products running on the Phoenix. The brilliance of the system were the networking cards that plugged into the individual machines. These used the 55AA installable driver of the IBM BIOS to simply add the zip and hard disk drives to each computers drives list. So a system that started with floppy drives A and B and a C hard disk on the machine would have the SRS 45 drives added as drives D (E, F depending on the number of hard disk) and Z for the zip drive. Sharing (avoiding writing to the same file at the same time) was handled by simply assigning parts of the drives for individuals and other directories for shared use. No "driver" software was needed. You simply plugged in the networking card and your machine had additional drives that were internal to the SRS45. This approach was far ahead of its time and sadly never recognized for its brilliance. The SRS45 as were all CPT machines not just dedicated Word Processors. === Personal-computer based === ==== CPT PT software ==== CPT PT was a reduced a version of the software that ran under MS-DOS as an application on IBM PC compatible computers. The corporation intended it as a bridge to allow data to flow in and out of personal computer packages, as well as providing a personal-computer word processing application for those familiar with standalone CPT equipment or who preferred the CPT style of dual-window text editing. Price: approx. $200, 1980-era values. ==== CPT Genius Display ==== The Genius display was a stand-alone, vertically-oriented (portrait) configuration monochrome grey-scale CRT monitor unit and an IBM PC form factor display card to allow high-resolution, full-page text & graphics on IBM PC compatible computers.

  Read more →
• 

  LightGBM

  LightGBM, short for Light Gradient-Boosting Machine, is a free and open-source distributed gradient-boosting framework for machine learning, originally developed by Microsoft. It is based on decision tree algorithms and used for ranking, classification and other machine learning tasks. The development focus is on performance and scalability. == Overview == The LightGBM framework supports different algorithms including GBT, GBDT, GBRT, GBM, MART and RF. LightGBM has many of XGBoost's advantages, including sparse optimization, parallel training, multiple loss functions, regularization, bagging, and early stopping. A major difference between the two lies in the construction of trees. LightGBM does not grow a tree level-wise — row by row — as most other implementations do. Instead it grows trees leaf-wise. It will choose the leaf with max delta loss to grow. Besides, LightGBM does not use the widely used sorted-based decision tree learning algorithm, which searches the best split point on sorted feature values, as XGBoost or other implementations do. Instead, LightGBM implements a highly optimized histogram-based decision tree learning algorithm, which yields great advantages on both efficiency and memory consumption. The LightGBM algorithm utilizes two novel techniques called Gradient-Based One-Side Sampling (GOSS) and Exclusive Feature Bundling (EFB) which allow the algorithm to run faster while maintaining a high level of accuracy. LightGBM works on Linux, Windows, and macOS and supports C++, Python, R, and C#. The source code is licensed under MIT License and available on GitHub. == Gradient-based one-side sampling == When using gradient descent, one thinks about the space of possible configurations of the model as a valley, in which the lowest part of the valley is the model which most closely fits the data. In this metaphor, one walks in different directions to learn how much lower the valley becomes. Typically, in gradient descent, one uses the whole set of data to calculate the valley's slopes. However, this commonly used method assumes that every data point is equally informative. By contrast, Gradient-Based One-Side Sampling (GOSS), a method first developed for gradient-boosted decision trees, does not rely on the assumption that all data are equally informative. Instead, it treats data points with smaller gradients (shallower slopes) as less informative by randomly dropping them. This is intended to filter out data which may have been influenced by noise, allowing the model to more accurately model the underlying relationships in the data. == Exclusive feature bundling == Exclusive feature bundling (EFB) is a near-lossless method to reduce the number of effective features. In a sparse feature space many features are nearly exclusive, implying they rarely take nonzero values simultaneously. One-hot encoded features are a perfect example of exclusive features. EFB bundles these features, reducing dimensionality to improve efficiency while maintaining a high level of accuracy. The bundle of exclusive features into a single feature is called an exclusive feature bundle.

  Read more →
• 

  Geopolitical ontology

  The FAO geopolitical ontology is an ontology developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to describe, manage and exchange data related to geopolitical entities such as countries, territories, regions and other similar areas. == Definitions and examples == An ontology is a kind of dictionary that describes information in a certain domain using concepts and relationships. It is often implemented using OWL (Web Ontology Language), an XML-based standard language that can be interpreted by computers. A Concept is defined as abstract knowledge. For example, in the geopolitical ontology a non-self-governing territory and a geographical group are concepts. Concepts are explicitly implemented in the ontology with individuals and classes: An individual is defined as an object perceived from the real world. In the geopolitical domain Ethiopia and the least developed countries group are individuals. A class is defined as a set of individuals sharing common properties. In the geopolitical domain, Ethiopia, Republic of Korea and Italy are individuals of the class self-governing territory; and least developed countries is an individual of the class special group. Relationships between concepts are explicitly implemented by: Object properties between individuals of two classes. For example, has member and is in group properties, as shown in Figure 1. Datatype properties between individuals and literals or XML datatypes. For example, the individual Afghanistan has the datatype property CodeISO3 with the value "AFG". Restrictions in classes and/or properties. For example, the property official English name of the class self-governing territory has been restricted to have only one value, this means that a self-governing territory (or country) can only have one internationally recognized official English name. The advantage of describing information in an ontology is that it enables to acquire domain knowledge by defining hierarchical structures of classes, adding individuals, setting object properties and datatype properties, and assigning restrictions. == FAO ontology == The geopolitical ontology provides names in seven languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, English, Spanish, Russian and Italian) and identifiers in various international coding systems (ISO2, ISO3, AGROVOC, FAOSTAT, FAOTERM, GAUL, UN, UNDP and DBPediaID codes) for territories and groups. Moreover, the FAO geopolitical ontology tracks historical changes from 1985 up until today; provides geolocation (geographical coordinates); implements relationships among countries and countries, or countries and groups, including properties such as has border with, is predecessor of, is successor of, is administered by, has members, and is in group; and disseminates country statistics including country area, land area, agricultural area, GDP or population. The FAO geopolitical ontology provides a structured description of data sources. This includes: source name, source identifier, source creator and source's update date. Concepts are described using the Dublin Core vocabulary In summary, the main objectives of the FAO geopolitical ontology are: To provide the most updated geopolitical information (names, codes, relationships, statistics) To track historical changes in geopolitical information To improve information management and facilitate standardized data sharing of geopolitical information To demonstrate the benefits of the geopolitical ontology to improve interoperability of corporate information systems It is possible to download the FAO geopolitical ontology in OWL and RDF formats. Documentation is available in the FAO Country Profiles Geopolitical information web page. == Features of the FAO ontology == The geopolitical ontology contains : Area types: Territories: self-governing, non-self-governing, disputed, other. Groups: organizations, geographic, economic and special groups. Names (official, short and names for lists) in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish, Russian and Italian. International codes: UN code – M49, ISO 3166 Alpha-2 and Alpha-3, UNDP code, GAUL code, FAOSTAT, AGROVOC FAOTERM and DBPediaID. Coordinates: maximum latitude, minimum latitude, maximum longitude, minimum longitude. Basic country statistics: country area, land area, agricultural area, GDP, population. Currency names and codes. Adjectives of nationality. Relations: Groups membership. Neighbours (land border), administration of non-self-governing. Historic changes: predecessor, successor, valid since, valid until. == Implementation into OWL == The FAO geopolitical ontology is implemented in OWL. It consists of classes, properties, individuals and restrictions. Table 1 shows all classes, gives a brief description and lists some individuals that belong to each class. Note that the current version of the geopolitical ontology does not provide individuals of the class "disputed" territories. Table 2 and Table 3 illustrate datatype properties and object properties. == Geopolitical ontology in Linked Open Data == The FAO Geopolitical ontology is embracing the W3C Linked Open Data (LOD) initiative and released its RDF version of the geopolitical ontology in March 2011. The term 'Linked Open Data' refers to a set of best practices for publishing and connecting structured data on the Web. The key technologies that support Linked Data are URIs, HTTP and RDF. The RDF version of the geopolitical ontology is compliant with all Linked data principles to be included in the Linked Open Data cloud, as explained in the following. == Resolvable http:// URIs == Every resource in the OWL format of the FAO Geopolitical Ontology has a unique URI. Dereferenciation was implemented to allow for three different URIs to be assigned to each resource as follows: URI identifying the non-information resource Information resource with an RDF/XML representation Information resource with an HTML representation In addition the current URIs used for OWL format needed to be kept to allow for backwards compatibility for other systems that are using them. Therefore, the new URIs for the FAO Geopolitical Ontology in LOD were carefully created, using “Cool URIs for Semantic Web” and considering other good practices for URIs, such as DBpedia URIs. == New URIs == The URIs of the geopolitical ontology need to be permanent, consequently all transient information, such as year, version, or format was avoided in the definition of the URIs. The new URIs can be accessed For example, for the resource “Italy” the URIs are the following: http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/resource/Italy identifies the non-information resource. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/data/Italy identifies the resource with an RDF/XML representation. http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/geoinfo/geopolitical/page/Italy identifies the information resource with an HTML representation. In addition, “owl:sameAs” is used to map the new URIs to the OWL representation. == Dereferencing URIs == When a non-information resource is looked up without any specific representation format, then the server needs to redirect the request to information resource with an HTML representation. For example, to retrieve the resource “Italy”, which is a non-information resource, the server redirects to the HTML page of “Italy”. == At least 1000 triples in the datasets == The total number of triple statements in FAO Geopolitical Ontology is 22,495. At least 50 links to a dataset already in the current LOD Cloud: FAO Geopolitical Ontology has 195 links to DBpedia, which is already part of the LOD Cloud. == Access to the entire dataset == FAO Geopolitical Ontology provides the entire dataset as a RDF dump. The RDF version of the FAO Geopolitical Ontology has been already registered in CKAN and it was requested to add it into the LOD Cloud. == Example of use == The FAO Country Profiles is an information retrieval tool which groups the FAO's vast archive of information on its global activities in agriculture and rural development in one single area and catalogues it exclusively by country. The FAO Country Profiles system provides access to country-based heterogeneous data sources. By using the geopolitical ontology in the system, the following benefits are expected: Enhanced system functionality for content aggregation and synchronization from the multiple source repositories. Improved information access and browsing through comparison of data in neighbor countries and groups. Figure 3 shows a page in the FAO Country Profiles where the geopolitical ontology is described.

  Read more →
• 

  Knowledge space

  In mathematical psychology and education theory, a knowledge space is a combinatorial structure used to formulate mathematical models describing the progression of a human learner. Knowledge spaces were introduced in 1985 by Jean-Paul Doignon and Jean-Claude Falmagne, and remain in extensive use in the education theory. Modern applications include two computerized tutoring systems, ALEKS and the defunct RATH. Formally, a knowledge space assumes that a domain of knowledge is a collection of concepts or skills, each of which must be eventually mastered. Not all concepts are interchangeable; some require other concepts as prerequisites. Conversely, competency at one skill may ease the acquisition of another through similarity. A knowledge space marks out which collections of skills are feasible: they can be learned without mastering any other skills. Under reasonable assumptions, the collection of feasible competencies forms the mathematical structure known as an antimatroid. Researchers and educators usually explore the structure of a discipline's knowledge space as a latent class model. == Motivation == Knowledge Space Theory attempts to address shortcomings of standardized testing when used in educational psychometry. Common tests, such as the SAT and ACT, compress a student's knowledge into a very small range of ordinal ranks, in the process effacing the conceptual dependencies between questions. Consequently, the tests cannot distinguish between true understanding and guesses, nor can they identify a student's particular weaknesses, only the general proportion of skills mastered. The goal of knowledge space theory is to provide a language by which exams can communicate What the student can do and What the student is ready to learn. == Model structure == Knowledge Space Theory-based models presume that an educational subject S can be modeled as a finite set Q of concepts, skills, or topics. Each feasible state of knowledge about S is then a subset of Q; the set of all such feasible states is K. The precise term for the information (Q, K) depends on the extent to which K satisfies certain axioms: A knowledge structure assumes that K contains the empty set (a student may know nothing about S) and Q itself (a student may have fully mastered S). A knowledge space is a knowledge structure that is closed under set union: if, for each topic, there is an expert in a class on that topic, then it is possible, with enough time and effort, for each student in the class to become an expert on all those topics simultaneously. A quasi-ordinal knowledge space is a knowledge space that is also closed under set intersection: if student a knows topics A and B; and student c knows topics B and C; then it is possible for another student b to know only topic B. A well-graded knowledge space or learning space is a knowledge space satisfying the following axiom: If S∈K, then there exists x∈S such that S\{x}∈K In educational terms, any feasible body of knowledge can be learned one concept at a time. === Prerequisite partial order === The more contentful axioms associated with quasi-ordinal and well-graded knowledge spaces each imply that the knowledge space forms a well-understood (and heavily studied) mathematical structure: A quasi-ordinal knowledge space can be associated with a distributive lattice under set union and set intersection. The name "quasi-ordinal" arises from Birkhoff's representation theorem, which explains that distributive lattices uniquely correspond to partial orders. A well-graded knowledge space is an antimatroid, a type of mathematical structure that describes certain problems solvable with a greedy algorithm. In either case, the mathematical structure implies that set inclusion defines partial order on K, interpretable as an educational prerequirement: if a(⪯)b in this partial order, then a must be learned before b. === Inner and outer fringe === The prerequisite partial order does not uniquely identify a curriculum; some concepts may lead to a variety of other possible topics. But the covering relation associated with the prerequisite partial does control curricular structure: if students know a before a lesson and b immediately after, then b must cover a in the partial order. In such a circumstance, the new topics covered between a and b constitute the outer fringe of a ("what the student was ready to learn") and the inner fringe of b ("what the student just learned"). == Construction of knowledge spaces == In practice, there exist several methods to construct knowledge spaces. The most frequently used method is querying experts. There exist several querying algorithms that allow one or several experts to construct a knowledge space by answering a sequence of simple questions. Another method is to construct the knowledge space by explorative data analysis (for example by item tree analysis) from data. A third method is to derive the knowledge space from an analysis of the problem solving processes in the corresponding domain.

  Read more →
• 

  Line detection

  In image processing, line detection is an algorithm that takes a collection of n edge points and finds all the lines on which these edge points lie. The most popular line detectors are the Hough transform and convolution-based techniques. == Hough transform == The Hough transform can be used to detect lines and the output is a parametric description of the lines in an image, for example ρ = r cos(θ) + c sin(θ). If there is a line in a row and column based image space, it can be defined ρ, the distance from the origin to the line along a perpendicular to the line, and θ, the angle of the perpendicular projection from the origin to the line measured in degrees clockwise from the positive row axis. Therefore, a line in the image corresponds to a point in the Hough space. The Hough space for lines has therefore these two dimensions θ and ρ, and a line is represented by a single point corresponding to a unique set of these parameters. The Hough transform can then be implemented by choosing a set of values of ρ and θ to use. For each pixel (r, c) in the image, compute r cos(θ) + c sin(θ) for each values of θ, and place the result in the appropriate position in the (ρ, θ) array. At the end, the values of (ρ, θ) with the highest values in the array will correspond to strongest lines in the image == Convolution-based technique == In a convolution-based technique, the line detector operator consists of a convolution masks tuned to detect the presence of lines of a particular width n and a θ orientation. Here are the four convolution masks to detect horizontal, vertical, oblique (+45 degrees), and oblique (−45 degrees) lines in an image. a) Horizontal mask(R1) (b) Vertical (R3) (C) Oblique (+45 degrees)(R2) (d) Oblique (−45 degrees)(R4) In practice, masks are run over the image and the responses are combined given by the following equation: R(x, y) = max(|R1 (x, y)|, |R2 (x, y)|, |R3 (x, y)|, |R4 (x, y)|) If R(x, y) > T, then discontinuity As can be seen below, if mask is overlay on the image (horizontal line), multiply the coincident values, and sum all these results, the output will be the (convolved image). For example, (−1)(0)+(−1)(0)+(−1)(0) + (2)(1) +(2)(1)+(2)(1) + (−1)(0)+(−1)(0)+(−1)(0) = 6 pixels on the second row, second column in the (convolved image) starting from the upper left corner of the horizontal lines. page 82 == Example == These masks above are tuned for light lines against a dark background, and would give a big negative response to dark lines against a light background. == Code example == The code was used to detect only the vertical lines in an image using Matlab and the result is below. The original image is the one on the top and the result is below it. As can be seen on the picture on the right, only the vertical lines were detected

  Read more →
• 

  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

  Read more →
• 

  Executive Order 14110

  Executive Order 14110, titled Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (sometimes referred to as "Executive Order on Artificial Intelligence") was the 126th executive order signed by former U.S. President Joe Biden. Signed on October 30, 2023, the order defines the administration's policy goals regarding artificial intelligence (AI), and orders executive agencies to take actions pursuant to these goals. The order is considered to be the most comprehensive piece of governance by the United States regarding AI. It was rescinded by U.S. President Donald Trump within hours of his assuming office on January 20, 2025. Policy goals outlined in the executive order pertain to promoting competition in the AI industry, preventing AI-enabled threats to civil liberties and national security, and ensuring U.S. global competitiveness in the AI field. The executive order required a number of major federal agencies to create dedicated "chief artificial intelligence officer" positions within their organizations. == Background == The drafting of the order was motivated by the rapid pace of development in generative AI models in the 2020s, including the release of large language model ChatGPT. Executive Order 14110 is the third executive order dealing explicitly with AI, with two AI-related executive orders being signed by then-President Donald Trump. The development of AI models without policy safeguards has raised a variety of concerns among experts and commentators. These range from future existential risk from advanced AI models to immediate concerns surrounding current technologies' ability to disseminate misinformation, enable discrimination, and undermine national security. In August 2023, Arati Prabhakar, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, indicated that the White House was expediting its work on executive action on AI. A week prior to the executive order's unveiling, Prabhakar indicated that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the order would be released "soon" after. == Policy goals and provisions == The order has been characterized as an effort for the United States to capture potential benefits from AI while mitigating risks associated with AI technologies. Upon signing the order, Biden stated that AI technologies were being developed at "warp speed", and argued that to "realize the promise of AI and avoid the risk, we need to govern this technology". Policy goals outlined by the order include the following: Promoting competition and innovation in the AI industry Upholding civil and labor rights and protecting consumers and their privacy from AI-enabled harms Specifying federal policies governing procurement and use of AI Developing watermarking systems for AI-generated content and warding off intellectual property theft stemming from the use of generative models Maintaining the nation's place as a global leader in AI == Impact on agencies == === Creation of chief AI officer positions === The executive order required a number of large federal agencies to appoint a chief artificial intelligence officer, with a number of departments having already appointed a relevant officer prior to the order. In the days following the order, news publication FedScoop confirmed that the General Services Administration (GSA) and the United States Department of Education appointed relevant chief AI officers. The National Science Foundation (NSF) also confirmed it had elevated an official to serve as its chief AI officer. === Department responsibilities === Under the executive order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was responsible for developing AI-related security guidelines, including cybersecurity-related matters. The DHS will also work with private sector firms in sectors including the energy industry and other "critical infrastructure" to coordinate responses to AI-enabled security threats. Executive Order 14110 mandated the Department of Veterans Affairs to launch an AI technology competition aimed at reducing occupational burnout among healthcare workers through AI-assisted tools for routine tasks. The order also mandated the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to develop a generative artificial intelligence-focused resource to supplement the existing AI Risk Management Framework. == Analysis == The executive order has been described as the most comprehensive piece of governance by the United States government pertaining to AI. Earlier in 2023 prior to the signing of the order, the Biden administration had announced a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights, and had secured non-binding AI safety commitments from major tech companies. The issuing of the executive order comes at a time in which lawmakers including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer have pushed for legislation to regulate AI in the 118th United States Congress. According to Axios, despite the wide scope of the executive order, it notably does not touch upon a number of AI-related policy proposals. This includes proposals for a "licensing regime" to government advanced AI models, which has received support from industry leaders including Sam Altman. Additionally, the executive order does not seek to prohibit 'high-risk' uses of AI technology, and does not aim to mandate that tech companies release information surrounding AI systems' training data and models. == Reception == === Political and media reception === The editorial board of the Houston Chronicle described the order as a "first step toward protecting humanity". The issuing of the order received praise from Democratic members of Congress, including Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Representative Ted Lieu (D-CA). Representative Don Beyer (D-VA), who leads the House AI Caucus, praised the order as a "comprehensive strategy for responsible innovation", while arguing that Congress must take initiative to pass legislation on AI. The draft of the order received criticism from Republican Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who described it as creating "barriers to innovation disguised as safety measures". === Public reception === Polling from the AI Policy Institute showed that 69% of all voters support the executive order, while 15% oppose it. Breaking it down by party, support was at 78% for Democrats, 65% for independents, and 64% for Republicans. === Industry reception === The executive order received strong criticism from the Chamber of Commerce as well as tech industry groups including NetChoice and the Software and Information Industry Association, all of which count "Big Tech" companies Amazon, Meta, and Google as members. Representatives from the organizations argued that the executive order threatens to hinder private sector innovation. === Civil society reception === According to CNBC, a number of leaders advocacy organizations praised the executive order for its provisions on "AI fairness", while simultaneously urging congressional action to strengthen regulation. Maya Wiley, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, praised the order while urging Congress to take initiative to "ensure that innovation makes us more fair, just, and prosperous, rather than surveilled, silenced, and stereotyped". A representative from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) praised provisions of the order centered on combating AI-enabled discrimination, while also voiced concern over sections of the order focused on law enforcement and national security. === Second Trump administration === Hours after his inauguration as the 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump rescinded the order, labeling it, among several other of Biden's executive orders and actions, as "unpopular, inflationary, illegal, and radical practices".

  Read more →
• 

  ACROSS Project

  ACROSS is a Singular Strategic R&D Project led by Treelogic funded by the Spanish Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Trade activities in the field of Robotics and Cognitive Computing over an execution time-frame from 2009 to 2011. ACROSS project involves a number higher than 100 researchers from 13 Spanish entities. == ACROSS project objectives == ACROSS modifies the design of social robotics, blocked in providing predefined services, going further by means of intelligent systems. These systems are able to self-reconfigure and modify their behavior autonomously through the capacity for understanding, learning and software remote access. In order to provide an open framework for collaboration between universities, research centers and the Administration, ACROSS develops Open Source Services available to everybody. == Three application domains == ACROSS works in three application domains: Autonomous living: robots are used as technological tools to help handicapped person into daily tasks. Psycho-Affective Disorders (autism): robots are used to mitigate cognitive disorders. Marketing: robots are used to interact with humans in a recreational approach. == Consortium == Treelogic Alimerka Bizintek Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya University of Deusto European Centre for Soft Computing Fatronik - Tecnalia Fundació Hospital Comarcal Sant Antoni Abat Fundación Pública Andaluza para la Gestión de la Investigación en Salud de Sevilla, "Virgen del Rocío" University Hospitals m-BOT Omicron Electronic Universidad de Extremadura - RoboLab Verbio Technologies

  Read more →
• 

  ACL Data Collection Initiative

  The ACL Data Collection Initiative (ACL/DCI) was a project established in 1989 by the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) to create and distribute large text and speech corpora for computational linguistics research. The initiative aimed to address the growing need for substantial text databases that could support research in areas such as natural language processing, speech recognition, and computational linguistics. By 1993, the initiative’s activities had effectively ceased, with its functions and datasets absorbed by the Linguistic Data Consortium (LDC), which was founded in 1992. == Objectives == The ACL/DCI had several key objectives: To acquire a large and diverse text corpus from various sources To transform the collected texts into a common format based on the Standard Generalized Markup Language (SGML) To make the corpus available for scientific research at low cost with minimal restrictions To provide a common database that would allow researchers to replicate or extend published results To reduce duplication of effort among researchers in obtaining and preparing text data These objectives were designed to address the growing demand for very large amounts of text arising from applications in recognition and analysis of text and speech. Its core objective was to "oversee the acquisition and preparation of a large text corpus to be made available for scientific research at cost and without royalties". == History == By the late 1980s, researchers in computational linguistics and speech recognition faced a significant problem: the lack of large-scale, accessible text corpora for developing statistical models and testing algorithms. Existing generally available text databases were too small to meet the needs of developing applications in text and speech recognition. The initiative was formed to meet this need by collecting, standardizing, and distributing large quantities of text data with minimal restrictions for scientific research. As stated by Liberman (1990), "research workers have been severely hampered by the lack of appropriate materials, and specially by the lack of a large enough body of text on which published results can be replicated or extended by others." The ACL/DCI committee was established in February 1989. The committee included members from academic and industrial research laboratories in the United States and Europe. The initiative was chaired by Mark Liberman from the University of Pennsylvania (formerly of AT&T Bell Laboratories). Other committee members included representatives from organizations such as Bellcore, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center, Cambridge University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Northeastern University, University of Pennsylvania, SRI International, MCC, Xerox PARC, ISSCO, and University of Pisa. The project operated initially without dedicated funding, relying on volunteer efforts from committee members and their affiliated institutions. Key supporters included AT&T Bell Labs, Bellcore, IBM, Xerox, and the University of Pennsylvania, which allowed the use of their computing facilities for ACL/DCI-related work. Previously running on volunteer effort pro bono, in 1991, it obtained funding from General Electric and the National Science Foundation (IRI-9113530). == Data == As of 1990, the ACL/DCI had collected hundreds of millions of words of diverse text. The collection included: Wall Street Journal articles (25 to 50 million words); Canadian Hansard (parliamentary records) in parallel English and French versions: cleaned-up English Hansard donated by the IBM alignment models group (100 million words), and original Bilingual Hansard (from a different time period) obtained directly (200 million words). Collins English Dictionary (1979 edition), both as fulltext (3 million words) and as various "database" versions, constructed using "typographers' tape" donated by Collins, which were computer tapes containing the structured digital data used to typeset and print the 1979 edition of the dictionary; Emails from ARPANET newsletters for the ACM Special Interest Group on Information Retrieval Forum (IRLIST) and AIList Digest issues distributed over the ARPANET (AILIST) (5 million words), both collected by Edward A. Fox at VIPSU; Articles on networking (2 million words); U.S. Department of Agriculture Extension Service Fact Sheets (>1 million words); 200,000 scientific abstracts of about 1,500 words each from the Department of Energy (25 million words); Archives of the Challenger Investigation Commission, including transcripts of depositions and hearings (2.5 million words); Books from the Library of America, including works by Mark Twain, Eugene O'Neill, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Herman Melville, W.E.B. DuBois, Willa Cather, and Benjamin Franklin (130 books, 20 million words); Public domain books like the King James Bible, Tristram Shandy, The Federalist Papers; Several million words of transcribed radiologists' reports, donated by Francis Ganong at Kurzweil Applied Intelligence Inc (about 5 million words); The Child Language Data Exchange corpus of child language acquisition transcripts; U.S. Department of Justice Justice Retrieval and Inquiry System (JURIS) materials; The Swiss Civil Code in parallel German, French and Italian; Economic reports from the Union Bank of Switzerland, in parallel English, German, French and Italian; About 12K words of administrative policy manuals and 14K words of administrative memos, contributed by Geoff Pullum of U.C.S.C.; Material from various ACM journals and the ACL journal Computational Linguistics; The CSLI publications series: 50-100 reports (8K words each) and 5-10 books (80K words each). The initiative started with North American English text but expanded to include Canadian French and planned to include Japanese, Chinese, and other Asian languages. At least 5 million words from the collection were tagged under the Penn Treebank project, and those tags were distributed by DCI as well. After DCI was absorbed by the LDC, the datasets were curated under LDC. == Format == The ACL/DCI corpus was coded in a standard form based on SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language, ISO 8879), consistent with the recommendations of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI), of which the DCI was an affiliated project. The TEI was a joint project of the ACL, the Association for Computers and the Humanities, and the Association for Literary and Linguistic Computing, aiming to provide a common interchange format for literary and linguistic data. The initiative planned to add annotations reflecting consensually approved linguistic features like part of speech and various aspects of syntactic and semantic structure over time. == Examples == As an example of the use of ACL/DCI, consider the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) corpus for speech recognition research. The WSJ corpus was used as the basis for the DARPA Spoken Language System (SLS) community's Continuous Speech Recognition (CSR) Corpus. The WSJ corpus became a standard benchmark for evaluating speech recognition systems and has been used in numerous research papers. The WSJ CSR Corpus provided DARPA with its first general-purpose English, large vocabulary, natural language, high perplexity corpus containing speech (400 hours) and text (47 million words) during 1987–89. The text corpus was 313 MB in size. The text was preprocessed to remove ambiguity in the word sequence that a reader might choose, ensuring that the unread text used to train language models was representative of the spoken test material. The preprocessing included converting numbers into orthographics, expanding abbreviations, resolving apostrophes and quotation marks, and marking punctuation. As another example, the Yarowsky algorithm used bitext data from DCI to train a simple word-sense disambiguation model that was competitive with advanced models trained on smaller datasets. == Distribution == Materials from the ACL/DCI collection were distributed to research groups on a non-commercial basis. By 1990, about 25 research groups and individual researchers had received tapes containing various portions of the collected material. To obtain the data, researchers had to sign an agreement not to redistribute the data or make direct commercial use of it. However, commercial application of "analytical materials" derived from the text, such as statistical tables or grammar rules, was explicitly permitted. The initiative first distributed data via 12-inch reels of 9-track tape, then via CD-ROMs. Each such tape could contain 30 million words compressed via the Lempel-Ziv algorithms. The first CD-ROM distribution was in 1991, funded by Dragon Systems Inc. It contained Collins English Dictionary, WSJ, scientific abstracts provided by the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Penn Treebank.

  Read more →
• 

  Hubert Dreyfus

  Hubert Lederer Dreyfus ( DRY-fəs; October 15, 1929 – April 22, 2017) was an American philosopher and a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley. His main interests included phenomenology, existentialism and the philosophy of both psychology and literature, as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence. He was widely known for his exegesis of Martin Heidegger, which critics labeled "Dreydegger". Dreyfus was featured in Tao Ruspoli's film Being in the World (2010), and was among the philosophers interviewed by Bryan Magee for the BBC Television series The Great Philosophers (1987). The Futurama character Professor Hubert Farnsworth is partly named after him, writer Eric Kaplan having been a former student. == Life and career == Dreyfus was born on 15 October 1929, in Terre Haute, Indiana, to Stanley S. and Irene (Lederer) Dreyfus. He attended Harvard University from 1947. With a senior honors thesis on Causality and Quantum Theory (for which W. V. O. Quine was the main examiner) he was awarded a B.A. summa cum laude in 1951 and joined Phi Beta Kappa. He was awarded a M.A. in 1952. He was a Teaching Fellow at Harvard from 1952 to 1953 (as he was again in 1954 and 1956). Then, on a Harvard Sheldon traveling fellowship, Dreyfus studied at the University of Freiburg from 1953 to 1954. During this time he had an interview with Martin Heidegger. Sean D. Kelly records that Dreyfus found the meeting 'disappointing.' A brief mention of it was made by Dreyfus during his 1987 BBC interview with Bryan Magee in remarks that are revealing of both his and Heidegger's opinion of the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. Between 1956 and 1957, Dreyfus undertook research at the Husserl Archives at the University of Louvain on a Fulbright Fellowship. Towards the end of his stay, his first (jointly authored) paper "Curds and Lions in Don Quijote" would appear in print. After acting as an instructor in philosophy at Brandeis University (1957–1959), he attended the Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, on a French government grant (1959–1960). From 1960, first as an instructor, then as an assistant and then associate professor, Dreyfus taught philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In 1964, with his dissertation Husserl's Phenomenology of Perception, he obtained his Ph.D. from Harvard. (Due to his knowledge of Husserl, Dagfinn Føllesdal sat on the thesis committee but he has asserted that Dreyfus "was not really my student.") That same year, his co-translation (with his first wife) of Sense and Non-Sense by Maurice Merleau-Ponty was published. Also in 1964, and whilst still at MIT, he was employed as a consultant by the RAND Corporation to review the work of Allen Newell and Herbert A. Simon in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). This resulted in the publication, in 1965, of the "famously combative" Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, which proved to be the first of a series of papers and books attacking the AI field's claims and assumptions. The first edition of What Computers Can't Do would follow in 1972, and this critique of AI (which has been translated into at least ten languages) would establish Dreyfus's public reputation. However, as the editors of his Festschrift noted: "the study and interpretation of 'continental' philosophers... came first in the order of his philosophical interests and influences." === Berkeley === In 1968, although he had been granted tenure, Dreyfus left MIT and became an associate professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, (winning, that same year, the Harbison Prize for Outstanding Teaching). In 1972 he was promoted to full professor. Though Dreyfus retired from his chair in 1994, he continued as professor of philosophy in the Graduate School (and held, from 1999, a joint appointment in the rhetoric department). He continued to teach philosophy at UC Berkeley until his last class in December 2016. Dreyfus was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He was also awarded an honorary doctorate for "his brilliant and highly influential work in the field of artificial intelligence" and his interpretation of twentieth century continental philosophy by Erasmus University. Dreyfus died on April 22, 2017. His younger brother and sometimes collaborator, Stuart Dreyfus, is a professor emeritus of industrial engineering and operations research at the University of California, Berkeley. == Dreyfus' criticism of AI == Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence (AI) concerns what he considers to be the four primary assumptions of AI research. The first two assumptions are what he calls the "biological" and "psychological" assumptions. The biological assumption is that the brain is analogous to computer hardware and the mind is analogous to computer software. The psychological assumption is that the mind works by performing discrete computations (in the form of algorithmic rules) on discrete representations or symbols. Dreyfus claims that the plausibility of the psychological assumption rests on two others: the epistemological and ontological assumptions. The epistemological assumption is that all activity (either by animate or inanimate objects) can be formalized (mathematically) in the form of predictive rules or laws. The ontological assumption is that reality consists entirely of a set of mutually independent, atomic (indivisible) facts. It's because of the epistemological assumption that workers in the field argue that intelligence is the same as formal rule-following, and it's because of the ontological one that they argue that human knowledge consists entirely of internal representations of reality. On the basis of these two assumptions, workers in the field claim that cognition is the manipulation of internal symbols by internal rules, and that, therefore, human behaviour is, to a large extent, context free (see contextualism). Therefore, a truly scientific psychology is possible, which will detail the 'internal' rules of the human mind, in the same way the laws of physics detail the 'external' laws of the physical world. However, it is this key assumption that Dreyfus denies. In other words, he argues that we cannot now (and never will be able to) understand our own behavior in the same way as we understand objects in, for example, physics or chemistry: that is, by considering ourselves as things whose behaviour can be predicted via 'objective', context free scientific laws. According to Dreyfus, a context-free psychology is a contradiction in terms. Dreyfus's arguments against this position are taken from the phenomenological and hermeneutical tradition (especially the work of Martin Heidegger). Heidegger argued that, contrary to the cognitivist views (on which AI has been based), our being is in fact highly context-bound, which is why the two context-free assumptions are false. Dreyfus doesn't deny that we can choose to see human (or any) activity as being 'law-governed', in the same way that we can choose to see reality as consisting of indivisible atomic facts... if we wish. But it is a huge leap from that to state that because we want to or can see things in this way that it is therefore an objective fact that they are the case. In fact, Dreyfus argues that they are not (necessarily) the case, and that, therefore, any research program that assumes they are will quickly run into profound theoretical and practical problems. Therefore, the current efforts of workers in the field are doomed to failure. Dreyfus argues that to get a device or devices with human-like intelligence would require them to have a human-like being-in-the-world and to have bodies more or less like ours, and social acculturation (i.e. a society) more or less like ours. (This view is shared by psychologists in the embodied psychology (Lakoff and Johnson 1999) and distributed cognition traditions. His opinions are similar to those of robotics researchers such as Rodney Brooks as well as researchers in the field of artificial life.) Contrary to a popular misconception, Dreyfus never predicted that computers would never beat humans at chess. In Alchemy and Artificial Intelligence, he only reported (correctly) the state of the art of the time: "Still no chess program can play even amateur chess." Daniel Crevier writes: "time has proven the accuracy and perceptiveness of some of Dreyfus's comments. Had he formulated them less aggressively, constructive actions they suggested might have been taken much earlier." == Webcasting philosophy == When UC Berkeley and Apple began making a selected number of lecture classes freely available to the public as podcasts beginning around 2006, a recording of Dreyfus teaching a course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature – From Gods to God and Back" rose to the 58th most popular webcast on iTunes. These webcasts have attracted the attention of many, including non-academics, to Dreyfus and his

  Read more →
• 

  MultiNet

  Multilayered extended semantic networks (MultiNets) are both a knowledge representation paradigm and a language for meaning representation of natural language expressions that has been developed by Prof. Dr. Hermann Helbig on the basis of earlier Semantic Networks. It is used in a question-answering application for German called InSicht. It is also used to create a tutoring application developed by the university of University of Hagen to teach MultiNet to knowledge engineers. MultiNet is claimed to be one of the most comprehensive and thoroughly described knowledge representation systems. It specifies conceptual structures by means of about 140 predefined relations and functions, which are systematically characterized and underpinned by a formal axiomatic apparatus. Apart from their relational connections, the concepts are embedded in a multidimensional space of layered attributes and their values. Another characteristic of MultiNet distinguishing it from simple semantic networks is the possibility to encapsulate whole partial networks and represent the resulting conceptual capsule as a node of higher order, which itself can be an argument of relations and functions. MultiNet has been used in practical NLP applications such as natural language interfaces to the Internet or question answering systems over large semantically annotated corpora with millions of sentences. MultiNet is also a cornerstone of the commercially available search engine SEMPRIA-Search, where it is used for the description of the computational lexicon and the background knowledge, for the syntactic-semantic analysis, for logical answer finding, as well as for the generation of natural language answers. MultiNet is supported by a set of software tools and has been used to build large semantically based computational lexicons. The tools include a semantic interpreter WOCADI, which translates natural language expressions (phrases, sentences, texts) into formal MultiNet expressions, a workbench MWR+ for the knowledge engineer (comprising modules for automatic knowledge acquisition and reasoning), and a workbench LIA+ for the computer lexicographer supporting the creation of large semantically based computational lexica.

  Read more →