77 skills found · Page 1 of 3
MIPT-ILab / Mipt MipsCycle-accurate pre-silicon simulator of RISC-V and MIPS CPUs
CMU-SAFARI / PythiaA customizable hardware prefetching framework using online reinforcement learning as described in the MICRO 2021 paper by Bera et al. (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2109.12021.pdf).
Aryia-Behroziuan / NeuronsAn ANN is a model based on a collection of connected units or nodes called "artificial neurons", which loosely model the neurons in a biological brain. Each connection, like the synapses in a biological brain, can transmit information, a "signal", from one artificial neuron to another. An artificial neuron that receives a signal can process it and then signal additional artificial neurons connected to it. In common ANN implementations, the signal at a connection between artificial neurons is a real number, and the output of each artificial neuron is computed by some non-linear function of the sum of its inputs. The connections between artificial neurons are called "edges". Artificial neurons and edges typically have a weight that adjusts as learning proceeds. The weight increases or decreases the strength of the signal at a connection. Artificial neurons may have a threshold such that the signal is only sent if the aggregate signal crosses that threshold. Typically, artificial neurons are aggregated into layers. Different layers may perform different kinds of transformations on their inputs. Signals travel from the first layer (the input layer) to the last layer (the output layer), possibly after traversing the layers multiple times. The original goal of the ANN approach was to solve problems in the same way that a human brain would. However, over time, attention moved to performing specific tasks, leading to deviations from biology. Artificial neural networks have been used on a variety of tasks, including computer vision, speech recognition, machine translation, social network filtering, playing board and video games and medical diagnosis. Deep learning consists of multiple hidden layers in an artificial neural network. This approach tries to model the way the human brain processes light and sound into vision and hearing. Some successful applications of deep learning are computer vision and speech recognition.[68] Decision trees Main article: Decision tree learning Decision tree learning uses a decision tree as a predictive model to go from observations about an item (represented in the branches) to conclusions about the item's target value (represented in the leaves). It is one of the predictive modeling approaches used in statistics, data mining, and machine learning. Tree models where the target variable can take a discrete set of values are called classification trees; in these tree structures, leaves represent class labels and branches represent conjunctions of features that lead to those class labels. Decision trees where the target variable can take continuous values (typically real numbers) are called regression trees. In decision analysis, a decision tree can be used to visually and explicitly represent decisions and decision making. In data mining, a decision tree describes data, but the resulting classification tree can be an input for decision making. Support vector machines Main article: Support vector machines Support vector machines (SVMs), also known as support vector networks, are a set of related supervised learning methods used for classification and regression. Given a set of training examples, each marked as belonging to one of two categories, an SVM training algorithm builds a model that predicts whether a new example falls into one category or the other.[69] An SVM training algorithm is a non-probabilistic, binary, linear classifier, although methods such as Platt scaling exist to use SVM in a probabilistic classification setting. In addition to performing linear classification, SVMs can efficiently perform a non-linear classification using what is called the kernel trick, implicitly mapping their inputs into high-dimensional feature spaces. Illustration of linear regression on a data set. Regression analysis Main article: Regression analysis Regression analysis encompasses a large variety of statistical methods to estimate the relationship between input variables and their associated features. Its most common form is linear regression, where a single line is drawn to best fit the given data according to a mathematical criterion such as ordinary least squares. The latter is often extended by regularization (mathematics) methods to mitigate overfitting and bias, as in ridge regression. When dealing with non-linear problems, go-to models include polynomial regression (for example, used for trendline fitting in Microsoft Excel[70]), logistic regression (often used in statistical classification) or even kernel regression, which introduces non-linearity by taking advantage of the kernel trick to implicitly map input variables to higher-dimensional space. Bayesian networks Main article: Bayesian network A simple Bayesian network. Rain influences whether the sprinkler is activated, and both rain and the sprinkler influence whether the grass is wet. A Bayesian network, belief network, or directed acyclic graphical model is a probabilistic graphical model that represents a set of random variables and their conditional independence with a directed acyclic graph (DAG). For example, a Bayesian network could represent the probabilistic relationships between diseases and symptoms. Given symptoms, the network can be used to compute the probabilities of the presence of various diseases. Efficient algorithms exist that perform inference and learning. Bayesian networks that model sequences of variables, like speech signals or protein sequences, are called dynamic Bayesian networks. Generalizations of Bayesian networks that can represent and solve decision problems under uncertainty are called influence diagrams. Genetic algorithms Main article: Genetic algorithm A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search algorithm and heuristic technique that mimics the process of natural selection, using methods such as mutation and crossover to generate new genotypes in the hope of finding good solutions to a given problem. In machine learning, genetic algorithms were used in the 1980s and 1990s.[71][72] Conversely, machine learning techniques have been used to improve the performance of genetic and evolutionary algorithms.[73] Training models Usually, machine learning models require a lot of data in order for them to perform well. Usually, when training a machine learning model, one needs to collect a large, representative sample of data from a training set. Data from the training set can be as varied as a corpus of text, a collection of images, and data collected from individual users of a service. Overfitting is something to watch out for when training a machine learning model. Federated learning Main article: Federated learning Federated learning is an adapted form of distributed artificial intelligence to training machine learning models that decentralizes the training process, allowing for users' privacy to be maintained by not needing to send their data to a centralized server. This also increases efficiency by decentralizing the training process to many devices. For example, Gboard uses federated machine learning to train search query prediction models on users' mobile phones without having to send individual searches back to Google.[74] Applications There are many applications for machine learning, including: Agriculture Anatomy Adaptive websites Affective computing Banking Bioinformatics Brain–machine interfaces Cheminformatics Citizen science Computer networks Computer vision Credit-card fraud detection Data quality DNA sequence classification Economics Financial market analysis[75] General game playing Handwriting recognition Information retrieval Insurance Internet fraud detection Linguistics Machine learning control Machine perception Machine translation Marketing Medical diagnosis Natural language processing Natural language understanding Online advertising Optimization Recommender systems Robot locomotion Search engines Sentiment analysis Sequence mining Software engineering Speech recognition Structural health monitoring Syntactic pattern recognition Telecommunication Theorem proving Time series forecasting User behavior analytics In 2006, the media-services provider Netflix held the first "Netflix Prize" competition to find a program to better predict user preferences and improve the accuracy of its existing Cinematch movie recommendation algorithm by at least 10%. A joint team made up of researchers from AT&T Labs-Research in collaboration with the teams Big Chaos and Pragmatic Theory built an ensemble model to win the Grand Prize in 2009 for $1 million.[76] Shortly after the prize was awarded, Netflix realized that viewers' ratings were not the best indicators of their viewing patterns ("everything is a recommendation") and they changed their recommendation engine accordingly.[77] In 2010 The Wall Street Journal wrote about the firm Rebellion Research and their use of machine learning to predict the financial crisis.[78] In 2012, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, Vinod Khosla, predicted that 80% of medical doctors' jobs would be lost in the next two decades to automated machine learning medical diagnostic software.[79] In 2014, it was reported that a machine learning algorithm had been applied in the field of art history to study fine art paintings and that it may have revealed previously unrecognized influences among artists.[80] In 2019 Springer Nature published the first research book created using machine learning.[81] Limitations Although machine learning has been transformative in some fields, machine-learning programs often fail to deliver expected results.[82][83][84] Reasons for this are numerous: lack of (suitable) data, lack of access to the data, data bias, privacy problems, badly chosen tasks and algorithms, wrong tools and people, lack of resources, and evaluation problems.[85] In 2018, a self-driving car from Uber failed to detect a pedestrian, who was killed after a collision.[86] Attempts to use machine learning in healthcare with the IBM Watson system failed to deliver even after years of time and billions of dollars invested.[87][88] Bias Main article: Algorithmic bias Machine learning approaches in particular can suffer from different data biases. A machine learning system trained on current customers only may not be able to predict the needs of new customer groups that are not represented in the training data. When trained on man-made data, machine learning is likely to pick up the same constitutional and unconscious biases already present in society.[89] Language models learned from data have been shown to contain human-like biases.[90][91] Machine learning systems used for criminal risk assessment have been found to be biased against black people.[92][93] In 2015, Google photos would often tag black people as gorillas,[94] and in 2018 this still was not well resolved, but Google reportedly was still using the workaround to remove all gorillas from the training data, and thus was not able to recognize real gorillas at all.[95] Similar issues with recognizing non-white people have been found in many other systems.[96] In 2016, Microsoft tested a chatbot that learned from Twitter, and it quickly picked up racist and sexist language.[97] Because of such challenges, the effective use of machine learning may take longer to be adopted in other domains.[98] Concern for fairness in machine learning, that is, reducing bias in machine learning and propelling its use for human good is increasingly expressed by artificial intelligence scientists, including Fei-Fei Li, who reminds engineers that "There’s nothing artificial about AI...It’s inspired by people, it’s created by people, and—most importantly—it impacts people. It is a powerful tool we are only just beginning to understand, and that is a profound responsibility.”[99] Model assessments Classification of machine learning models can be validated by accuracy estimation techniques like the holdout method, which splits the data in a training and test set (conventionally 2/3 training set and 1/3 test set designation) and evaluates the performance of the training model on the test set. In comparison, the K-fold-cross-validation method randomly partitions the data into K subsets and then K experiments are performed each respectively considering 1 subset for evaluation and the remaining K-1 subsets for training the model. In addition to the holdout and cross-validation methods, bootstrap, which samples n instances with replacement from the dataset, can be used to assess model accuracy.[100] In addition to overall accuracy, investigators frequently report sensitivity and specificity meaning True Positive Rate (TPR) and True Negative Rate (TNR) respectively. Similarly, investigators sometimes report the false positive rate (FPR) as well as the false negative rate (FNR). However, these rates are ratios that fail to reveal their numerators and denominators. The total operating characteristic (TOC) is an effective method to express a model's diagnostic ability. TOC shows the numerators and denominators of the previously mentioned rates, thus TOC provides more information than the commonly used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and ROC's associated area under the curve (AUC).[101] Ethics Machine learning poses a host of ethical questions. Systems which are trained on datasets collected with biases may exhibit these biases upon use (algorithmic bias), thus digitizing cultural prejudices.[102] For example, using job hiring data from a firm with racist hiring policies may lead to a machine learning system duplicating the bias by scoring job applicants against similarity to previous successful applicants.[103][104] Responsible collection of data and documentation of algorithmic rules used by a system thus is a critical part of machine learning. Because human languages contain biases, machines trained on language corpora will necessarily also learn these biases.[105][106] Other forms of ethical challenges, not related to personal biases, are more seen in health care. There are concerns among health care professionals that these systems might not be designed in the public's interest but as income-generating machines. This is especially true in the United States where there is a long-standing ethical dilemma of improving health care, but also increasing profits. For example, the algorithms could be designed to provide patients with unnecessary tests or medication in which the algorithm's proprietary owners hold stakes. There is huge potential for machine learning in health care to provide professionals a great tool to diagnose, medicate, and even plan recovery paths for patients, but this will not happen until the personal biases mentioned previously, and these "greed" biases are addressed.[107] Hardware Since the 2010s, advances in both machine learning algorithms and computer hardware have led to more efficient methods for training deep neural networks (a particular narrow subdomain of machine learning) that contain many layers of non-linear hidden units.[108] By 2019, graphic processing units (GPUs), often with AI-specific enhancements, had displaced CPUs as the dominant method of training large-scale commercial cloud AI.[109] OpenAI estimated the hardware compute used in the largest deep learning projects from AlexNet (2012) to AlphaZero (2017), and found a 300,000-fold increase in the amount of compute required, with a doubling-time trendline of 3.4 months.[110][111] Software Software suites containing a variety of machine learning algorithms include the following: Free and open-source so
valar1234 / MIPSA classic 5-stage pipeline MIPS 32-bit processor, including a 2-bit branch predictor, a branch prediction buffer and a direct-mapped cache.
owenlly / Indirector ArtifactArtifact of "Indirector: High-Precision Branch Target Injection Attacks Exploiting the Indirect Branch Predictor" [USENIX Security 2024]
Aryia-Behroziuan / ReferencesPoole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 55. Definition of AI as the study of intelligent agents: Poole, Mackworth & Goebel (1998), which provides the version that is used in this article. These authors use the term "computational intelligence" as a synonym for artificial intelligence.[1] Russell & Norvig (2003) (who prefer the term "rational agent") and write "The whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field".[2] Nilsson 1998 Legg & Hutter 2007 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 2. McCorduck 2004, p. 204 Maloof, Mark. "Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, p. 37" (PDF). georgetown.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2018. "How AI Is Getting Groundbreaking Changes In Talent Management And HR Tech". Hackernoon. Archived from the original on 11 September 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2020. Schank, Roger C. (1991). "Where's the AI". AI magazine. Vol. 12 no. 4. p. 38. Russell & Norvig 2009. "AlphaGo – Google DeepMind". Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Allen, Gregory (April 2020). "Department of Defense Joint AI Center - Understanding AI Technology" (PDF). AI.mil - The official site of the Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Optimism of early AI: * Herbert Simon quote: Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. * Marvin Minsky quote: Minsky 1967, p. 2 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. Boom of the 1980s: rise of expert systems, Fifth Generation Project, Alvey, MCC, SCI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 426–441 * Crevier 1993, pp. 161–162,197–203, 211, 240 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 * NRC 1999, pp. 210–211 * Newquist 1994, pp. 235–248 First AI Winter, Mansfield Amendment, Lighthill report * Crevier 1993, pp. 115–117 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 22 * NRC 1999, pp. 212–213 * Howe 1994 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 Second AI winter: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 430–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 209–210 * NRC 1999, pp. 214–216 * Newquist 1994, pp. 301–318 AI becomes hugely successful in the early 21st century * Clark 2015 Pamela McCorduck (2004, p. 424) writes of "the rough shattering of AI in subfields—vision, natural language, decision theory, genetic algorithms, robotics ... and these with own sub-subfield—that would hardly have anything to say to each other." This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: * Russell & Norvig 2003 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 * Nilsson 1998 Kolata 1982. Maker 2006. Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general: Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering. McCorduck 2004, pp. 100–101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplished, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones." Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCarthy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real".[19] McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".[20]. Neats vs. scruffies: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 421–424, 486–489 * Crevier 1993, p. 168 * Nilsson 1983, pp. 10–11 Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI: * Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic". General intelligence (strong AI) is discussed in popular introductions to AI: * Kurzweil 1999 and Kurzweil 2005 See the Dartmouth proposal, under Philosophy, below. McCorduck 2004, p. 34. McCorduck 2004, p. xviii. McCorduck 2004, p. 3. McCorduck 2004, pp. 340–400. This is a central idea of Pamela McCorduck's Machines Who Think. She writes: "I like to think of artificial intelligence as the scientific apotheosis of a venerable cultural tradition."[26] "Artificial intelligence in one form or another is an idea that has pervaded Western intellectual history, a dream in urgent need of being realized."[27] "Our history is full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary and real—to make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us—bypassing the ordinary means. Back and forth between myth and reality, our imaginations supplying what our workshops couldn't, we have engaged for a long time in this odd form of self-reproduction."[28] She traces the desire back to its Hellenistic roots and calls it the urge to "forge the Gods."[29] "Stephen Hawking believes AI could be mankind's last accomplishment". BetaNews. 21 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Lombardo P, Boehm I, Nairz K (2020). "RadioComics – Santa Claus and the future of radiology". Eur J Radiol. 122 (1): 108771. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108771. PMID 31835078. Ford, Martin; Colvin, Geoff (6 September 2015). "Will robots create more jobs than they destroy?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 June 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018. AI applications widely used behind the scenes: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 28 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 265 * NRC 1999, pp. 216–222 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 AI in myth: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 4–5 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 939 AI in early science fiction. * McCorduck 2004, pp. 17–25 Formal reasoning: * Berlinski, David (2000). The Advent of the Algorithm. Harcourt Books. ISBN 978-0-15-601391-8. OCLC 46890682. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Turing, Alan (1948), "Machine Intelligence", in Copeland, B. Jack (ed.), The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 412, ISBN 978-0-19-825080-7 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 16. Dartmouth conference: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 111–136 * Crevier 1993, pp. 47–49, who writes "the conference is generally recognized as the official birthdate of the new science." * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who call the conference "the birth of artificial intelligence." * NRC 1999, pp. 200–201 McCarthy, John (1988). "Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of the History of Computing. 10 (3): 224–229., collected in McCarthy, John (1996). "10. Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Defending AI Research: A Collection of Essays and Reviews. CSLI., p. 73, "[O]ne of the reasons for inventing the term "artificial intelligence" was to escape association with "cybernetics". Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert (not Robert) Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him." Hegemony of the Dartmouth conference attendees: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who write "for the next 20 years the field would be dominated by these people and their students." * McCorduck 2004, pp. 129–130 Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18. Schaeffer J. (2009) Didn't Samuel Solve That Game?. In: One Jump Ahead. Springer, Boston, MA Samuel, A. L. (July 1959). "Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 3 (3): 210–229. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.368.2254. doi:10.1147/rd.33.0210. "Golden years" of AI (successful symbolic reasoning programs 1956–1973): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 243–252 * Crevier 1993, pp. 52–107 * Moravec 1988, p. 9 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 18–21 The programs described are Arthur Samuel's checkers program for the IBM 701, Daniel Bobrow's STUDENT, Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist and Terry Winograd's SHRDLU. DARPA pours money into undirected pure research into AI during the 1960s: * McCorduck 2004, p. 131 * Crevier 1993, pp. 51, 64–65 * NRC 1999, pp. 204–205 AI in England: * Howe 1994 Lighthill 1973. Expert systems: * ACM 1998, I.2.1 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–24 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–331 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 17.4 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 327–335, 434–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–62, 197–203 * Newquist 1994, pp. 155–183 Mead, Carver A.; Ismail, Mohammed (8 May 1989). Analog VLSI Implementation of Neural Systems (PDF). The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. 80. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1639-8. ISBN 978-1-4613-1639-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2020. Formal methods are now preferred ("Victory of the neats"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25–26 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 486–487 McCorduck 2004, pp. 480–483. Markoff 2011. "Ask the AI experts: What's driving today's progress in AI?". McKinsey & Company. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018. Administrator. "Kinect's AI breakthrough explained". i-programmer.info. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Rowinski, Dan (15 January 2013). "Virtual Personal Assistants & The Future Of Your Smartphone [Infographic]". ReadWrite. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. "Artificial intelligence: Google's AlphaGo beats Go master Lee Se-dol". BBC News. 12 March 2016. Archived from the original on 26 August 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. Metz, Cade (27 May 2017). "After Win in China, AlphaGo's Designers Explore New AI". Wired. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. "World's Go Player Ratings". May 2017. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. "柯洁迎19岁生日 雄踞人类世界排名第一已两年" (in Chinese). May 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Clark, Jack (8 December 2015). "Why 2015 Was a Breakthrough Year in Artificial Intelligence". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. After a half-decade of quiet breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, 2015 has been a landmark year. Computers are smarter and learning faster than ever. "Reshaping Business With Artificial Intelligence". MIT Sloan Management Review. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Lorica, Ben (18 December 2017). "The state of AI adoption". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Allen, Gregory (6 February 2019). "Understanding China's AI Strategy". Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original on 17 March 2019. "Review | How two AI superpowers – the U.S. and China – battle for supremacy in the field". Washington Post. 2 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. at 10:11, Alistair Dabbs 22 Feb 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: You know it isn't real, yeah?". www.theregister.co.uk. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. "Stop Calling it Artificial Intelligence". Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019. "AI isn't taking over the world – it doesn't exist yet". GBG Global website. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (1 January 2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons. 62 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. Domingos 2015, Chapter 5. Domingos 2015, Chapter 7. Lindenbaum, M., Markovitch, S., & Rusakov, D. (2004). Selective sampling for nearest neighbor classifiers. Machine learning, 54(2), 125–152. Domingos 2015, Chapter 1. Intractability and efficiency and the combinatorial explosion: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 9, 21–22 Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 3. Hart, P. E.; Nilsson, N. J.; Raphael, B. (1972). "Correction to "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths"". SIGART Newsletter (37): 28–29. doi:10.1145/1056777.1056779. S2CID 6386648. Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 6. "Can neural network computers learn from experience, and if so, could they ever become what we would call 'smart'?". Scientific American. 2018. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Domingos 2015, Chapter 6, Chapter 7. Domingos 2015, p. 286. "Single pixel change fools AI programs". BBC News. 3 November 2017. Archived from the original on 22 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. "AI Has a Hallucination Problem That's Proving Tough to Fix". WIRED. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Matti, D.; Ekenel, H. K.; Thiran, J. P. (2017). Combining LiDAR space clustering and convolutional neural networks for pedestrian detection. 2017 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS). pp. 1–6. arXiv:1710.06160. doi:10.1109/AVSS.2017.8078512. ISBN 978-1-5386-2939-0. S2CID 2401976. Ferguson, Sarah; Luders, Brandon; Grande, Robert C.; How, Jonathan P. (2015). Real-Time Predictive Modeling and Robust Avoidance of Pedestrians with Uncertain, Changing Intentions. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. 107. Springer, Cham. pp. 161–177. arXiv:1405.5581. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_10. ISBN 978-3-319-16594-3. S2CID 8681101. "Cultivating Common Sense | DiscoverMagazine.com". Discover Magazine. 2017. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Davis, Ernest; Marcus, Gary (24 August 2015). "Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence". Communications of the ACM. 58 (9): 92–103. doi:10.1145/2701413. S2CID 13583137. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020. Winograd, Terry (January 1972). "Understanding natural language". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (1): 1–191. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3. "Don't worry: Autonomous cars aren't coming tomorrow (or next year)". Autoweek. 2016. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Knight, Will (2017). "Boston may be famous for bad drivers, but it's the testing ground for a smarter self-driving car". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2018. Prakken, Henry (31 August 2017). "On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law". Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9210-0. Lieto, Antonio (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possible developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Problem solving, puzzle solving, game playing and deduction: * Russell & Norvig 2003, chpt. 3–9, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, chpt. 2,3,7,9, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, chpt. 3,4,6,8, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 7–12 Uncertain reasoning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 452–644, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 345–395, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 333–381, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 19 Psychological evidence of sub-symbolic reasoning: * Wason & Shapiro (1966) showed that people do poorly on completely abstract problems, but if the problem is restated to allow the use of intuitive social intelligence, performance dramatically improves. (See Wason selection task) * Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982) have shown that people are terrible at elementary problems that involve uncertain reasoning. (See list of cognitive biases for several examples). * Lakoff & Núñez (2000) have controversially argued that even our skills at mathematics depend on knowledge and skills that come from "the body", i.e. sensorimotor and perceptual skills. (See Where Mathematics Comes From) Knowledge representation: * ACM 1998, I.2.4, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–363, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23–46, 69–81, 169–196, 235–277, 281–298, 319–345, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–243, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18 Knowledge engineering: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260–266, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199–233, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. ≈17.1–17.4 Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349–354, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174–177, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248–258, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3 Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328–341, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–298, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2 Causal calculus: * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335–337 Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341–344, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275–277 Sikos, Leslie F. (June 2017). Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5. ISBN 978-3-319-54066-5. S2CID 3180114. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Ontology: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–328 Smoliar, Stephen W.; Zhang, HongJiang (1994). "Content based video indexing and retrieval". IEEE Multimedia. 1 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1109/93.311653. S2CID 32710913. Neumann, Bernd; Möller, Ralf (January 2008). "On scene interpretation with description logics". Image and Vision Computing. 26 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2007.08.013. Kuperman, G. J.; Reichley, R. M.; Bailey, T. C. (1 July 2006). "Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 13 (4): 369–371. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2055. PMC 1513681. PMID 16622160. MCGARRY, KEN (1 December 2005). "A survey of interestingness measures for knowledge discovery". The Knowledge Engineering Review. 20 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1017/S0269888905000408. S2CID 14987656. Bertini, M; Del Bimbo, A; Torniai, C (2006). "Automatic annotation and semantic retrieval of video sequences using multimedia ontologies". MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM. pp. 679–682. Qualification problem: * McCarthy & Hayes 1969 * Russell & Norvig 2003[page needed] While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354–360, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248–256, 323–335, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335–363, * Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3 Breadth of commonsense knowledge: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21, * Crevier 1993, pp. 113–114, * Moravec 1988, p. 13, * Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction) Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986. Gladwell 2005. Expert knowledge as embodied intuition: * Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically. See Dreyfus' critique of AI) * Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.) * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.) Planning: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.8, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–459, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–316, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Information value theory: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600–604 Classical planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–430, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–315, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430–449 Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449–455 Turing 1950. Solomonoff 1956. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".[120] In 1956, at the original Dartmouth AI summer conference, Ray Solomonoff wrote a report on unsupervised probabilistic machine learning: "An Inductive Inference Machine".[121] This is a form of Tom Mitchell's widely quoted definition of machine learning: "A computer program is set to learn from an experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P if its performance on T as measured by P improves with experience E." Learning: * ACM 1998, I.2.6, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 649–788, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 397–438, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 385–542, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 3.3, 10.3, 17.5, 20 Jordan, M. I.; Mitchell, T. M. (16 July 2015). "Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects". Science. 349 (6245): 255–260. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..255J. doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415. PMID 26185243. S2CID 677218. Reinforcement learning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763–788 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442–449 Natural language processing: * ACM 1998, I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790–831 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91–104 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591–632 "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis" Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119–142, 2011 Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840–857, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623–630 Cambria, Erik; White, Bebo (May 2014). "Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article]". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 9 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1109/MCI.2014.2307227. S2CID 206451986. Vincent, James (7 November 2019). "OpenAI has published the text-generating AI it said was too dangerous to share". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020. Machine perception: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537–581, 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6 Speech recognition: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568–578 Object recognition: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885–892 Computer vision: * ACM 1998, I.2.10 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6 Robotics: * ACM 1998, I.2.9, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901–942, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443–460 Moving and configuration space: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916–932 Tecuci 2012. Robotic mapping (localization, etc): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908–915 Cadena, Cesar; Carlone, Luca; Carrillo, Henry; Latif, Yasir; Scaramuzza, Davide; Neira, Jose; Reid, Ian; Leonard, John J. (December 2016). "Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward the Robust-Perception Age". IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 32 (6): 1309–1332. arXiv:1606.05830. Bibcode:2016arXiv160605830C. doi:10.1109/TRO.2016.2624754. S2CID 2596787. Moravec, Hans (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press. p. 15. Chan, Szu Ping (15 November 2015). "This is what will happen when robots take over the world". Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018. "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI". The Economist. 2018. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Kismet. Thompson, Derek (2018). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Scassellati, Brian (2002). "Theory of mind for a humanoid robot". Autonomous Robots. 12 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1023/A:1013298507114. S2CID 1979315. Cao, Yongcan; Yu, Wenwu; Ren, Wei; Chen, Guanrong (February 2013). "An Overview of Recent Progress in the Study of Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination". IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 9 (1): 427–438. arXiv:1207.3231. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2219061. S2CID 9588126. Thro 1993. Edelson 1991. Tao & Tan 2005. Poria, Soujanya; Cambria, Erik; Bajpai, Rajiv; Hussain, Amir (September 2017). "A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion". Information Fusion. 37: 98–125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003. hdl:1893/25490. Emotion and affective computing: * Minsky 2006 Waddell, Kaveh (2018). "Chatbots Have Entered the Uncanny Valley". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Pennachin, C.; Goertzel, B. (2007). Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_1. ISBN 978-3-540-23733-4. Roberts, Jacob (2016). "Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence". Distillations. Vol. 2 no. 2. pp. 14–23. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 20 March 2018. "The superhero of artificial intelligence: can this genius keep it in check?". the Guardian. 16 February 2016. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Mnih, Volodymyr; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Silver, David; Rusu, Andrei A.; Veness, Joel; Bellemare, Marc G.; Graves, Alex; Riedmiller, Martin; Fidjeland, Andreas K.; Ostrovski, Georg; Petersen, Stig; Beattie, Charles; Sadik, Amir; Antonoglou, Ioannis; King, Helen; Kumaran, Dharshan; Wierstra, Daan; Legg, Shane; Hassabis, Demis (26 February 2015). "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning". Nature. 518 (7540): 529–533. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..529M. doi:10.1038/nature14236. PMID 25719670. S2CID 205242740. Sample, Ian (14 March 2017). "Google's DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. "From not working to neural networking". The Economist. 2016. Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Domingos 2015. Artificial brain arguments: AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 957 * Crevier 1993, pp. 271 and 279 A few of the people who make some form of the argument: * Moravec 1988 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 262 * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 The most extreme form of this argument (the brain replacement scenario) was put forward by Clark Glymour in the mid-1970s and was touched on by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Searle in 1980. Goertzel, Ben; Lian, Ruiting; Arel, Itamar; de Garis, Hugo; Chen, Shuo (December 2010). "A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures". Neurocomputing. 74 (1–3): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2010.08.012. Nilsson 1983, p. 10. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about."[163] AI's immediate precursors: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 51–107 * Crevier 1993, pp. 27–32 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 15, 940 * Moravec 1988, p. 3 Haugeland 1985, pp. 112–117 The most dramatic case of sub-symbolic AI being pushed into the background was the devastating critique of perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert in 1969. See History of AI, AI winter, or Frank Rosenblatt. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 139–179, 245–250, 322–323 (EPAM) * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–149 Soar (history): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 450–451 * Crevier 1993, pp. 258–263 McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI International: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 251–259 * Crevier 1993 AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog: * Crevier 1993, pp. 193–196 * Howe 1994 AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s : * McCorduck 2004, pp. 259–305 * Crevier 1993, pp. 83–102, 163–176 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19 Cyc: * McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise" * Crevier 1993, pp. 239–243 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365 * Lenat & Guha 1989 Knowledge revolution: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 266–276, 298–300, 314, 421 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–23 Frederick, Hayes-Roth; William, Murray; Leonard, Adelman. "Expert systems". AccessScience. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.248550. Embodied approaches to AI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 454–462 * Brooks 1990 * Moravec 1988 Weng et al. 2001. Lungarella et al. 2003. Asada et al. 2009. Oudeyer 2010. Revival of connectionism: * Crevier 1993, pp. 214–215 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25 Computational intelligence * IEEE Computational Intelligence Society Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Hutson, Matthew (16 February 2018). "Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis". Science. pp. 725–726. Bibcode:2018Sci...359..725H. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.725. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018. Norvig 2012. Langley 2011. Katz 2012. The intelligent agent paradigm: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240 * Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126 The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria. Agent architectures, hybrid intelligent systems: * Russell & Norvig (2003, pp. 27, 932, 970–972) * Nilsson (1998, chpt. 25) Hierarchical control system: * Albus 2002 Lieto, Antonio; Lebiere, Christian; Oltramari, Alessandro (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possibile developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Lieto, Antonio; Bhatt, Mehul; Oltramari, Alessandro; Vernon, David (May 2018). "The role of cognitive architectures in general artificial intelligence". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.08.003. hdl:2318/1665249. S2CID 36189683. Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 1. White Paper: On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. 2020. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020. CNN 2006. Using AI to predict flight delays Archived 20 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Ishti.org. N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective". PeerJ Computer Science. 2: e93. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93. "The Economist Explains: Why firms are piling into artificial intelligence". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on 8 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Lohr, Steve (28 February 2016). "The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016. Frangoul, Anmar (14 June 2019). "A Californian business is using A.I. to change the way we think about energy storage". CNBC. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. Wakefield, Jane (15 June 2016). "Social media 'outstrips TV' as news source for young people". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Smith, Mark (22 July 2016). "So you think you chose to read this article?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Brown, Eileen. "Half of Americans do not believe deepfake news could target them online". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019. The Turing test: Turing's original publication: * Turing 1950 Historical influence and philosophical implications: * Haugeland 1985, pp. 6–9 * Crevier 1993, p. 24 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 70–71 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3 and 948 Dartmouth proposal: * McCarthy et al. 1955 (the original proposal) * Crevier 1993, p. 49 (historical significance) The physical symbol systems hypothesis: * Newell & Simon 1976, p. 116 * McCorduck 2004, p. 153 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18 Dreyfus 1992, p. 156. Dreyfus criticized the necessary condition of the physical symbol system hypothesis, which he called the "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."[206] Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence: * Dreyfus 1972, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 * Crevier 1993, pp. 120–132 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 211–239 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 950–952, Gödel 1951: in this lecture, Kurt Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. He recognized that this was only a conjecture, since one could never disprove (b). Yet he considered the disjunctive conclusion to be a "certain fact". The Mathematical Objection: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 949 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 448–449 Making the Mathematical Objection: * Lucas 1961 * Penrose 1989 Refuting Mathematical Objection: * Turing 1950 under "(2) The Mathematical Objection" * Hofstadter 1979 Background: * Gödel 1931, Church 1936, Kleene 1935, Turing 1937 Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail. Stuart J. Russell; Peter Norvig (2010). "26.1.2: Philosophical Foundations/Weak AI: Can Machines Act Intelligently?/The mathematical objection". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4. even if we grant that computers have limitations on what they can prove, there is no evidence that humans are immune from those limitations. Mark Colyvan. An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012. From 2.2.2, 'Philosophical significance of Gödel's incompleteness results': "The accepted wisdom (with which I concur) is that the Lucas-Penrose arguments fail." Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (3 January 2019). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society". Contemporary Social Science: 1–15. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803. ISSN 2158-2041. "Ethical AI Learns Human Rights Framework". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019. Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Colby presented a version of Weizenbaum's ELIZA known as DOCTOR which he promoted as a serious therapeutic tool.[216] Joseph Weizenbaum's critique of AI: * Weizenbaum 1976 * Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 356–373 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 961 Weizenbaum (the AI researcher who developed the first chatterbot program, ELIZA) argued in 1976 that the misuse of artificial intelligence has the potential to devalue human life. Wendell Wallach (2010). Moral Machines, Oxford University Press. Wallach, pp 37–54. Wallach, pp 55–73. Wallach, Introduction chapter. Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011), Machine Ethics, Cambridge University Press. "Machine Ethics". aaai.org. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Rubin, Charles (Spring 2003). "Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature". The New Atlantis. 1: 88–100. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Brooks, Rodney (10 November 2014). "artificial intelligence is a tool, not a threat". Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence". Observer. 19 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2018. See also this link Archived 8 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine Horst, Steven, (2005) "The Computational Theory of Mind" Archived 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Searle 1980, p. 1. This version is from Searle (1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, p. 435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." [230] Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell & Norvig (2003, p. 947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently
2Bor2C / TageImplementation of TAGE Branch Predictor - currently considered state of the art
comsec-group / VmscapeArtefacts for: "VMScape: Exposing and Exploiting Incomplete Branch Predictor Isolation in Cloud Environments"
sushantag9 / Supermarket Sales Data AnalysisThe growth of supermarkets in most populated cities are increasing and market competitions are also high. This dataset is one of the historical sales of supermarket company which has recorded in 3 different branches for 3 months data. Predictive data analytics methods are easy to apply with this datasets.
dhschall / LLBPBranch predictor simulation framework for the Last-Level Branch Predictor
GaryLiu152 / Chemprop AbaucinPersonal branch of chemprop used to predict the antibiotics Abaucin
oleg-codaio / Branch PredictorBranch Prediction Pin tool, implementing 2-bit saturating counter and perceptron branch predictors.
bcrafton / ProcessorA compiler, assembler, and processor.
lingbai-kong / MIPS89 Pipeline CPU同济大学CS《计算机系统实验》实验一TongJi University CS computer system experiment assignment 1
craymichael / CBP 16 SimulationBranch predictor simulation, analysis, and Python compatibility for the 5th Championship Branch Prediction in 2016 (CBP-16)
feyre-2001 / CollegePredictorPredict College and Branch you are likely to get into based on you percentile, quota, gender for JEE Mains 2020!
hoseinyavarzadeh / Pathfinder AttackPathfinder: High-Resolution Control-Flow Attacks Exploiting the Conditional Branch Predictor
Jasiuk-Research-Group / ResUNet DeepONet PlasticityImplementation of a ResUNet-based DeepONet for predicting stress distribution on variable input geometries subject to variable loads. A ResUNet is used in the trunk network to encode the variable input geometries, and a feed-forward neural network is used in the branch to encode the loading parameters.
uvhw / Bitcoin FoundationBitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Satoshi Nakamoto satoshin@gmx.com www.bitcoin.org Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. 1. Introduction Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. 1 2. Transactions We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership. Transaction Hash Transaction Hash Transaction Hash Owner 1's Public Key Owner 2's Public Key Owner 3's Public Key Owner 0's Signature Owner 1's Signature The problem of course is the payee can't verify that one of the owners did not double-spend the coin. A common solution is to introduce a trusted central authority, or mint, that checks every transaction for double spending. After each transaction, the coin must be returned to the mint to issue a new coin, and only coins issued directly from the mint are trusted not to be double-spent. The problem with this solution is that the fate of the entire money system depends on the company running the mint, with every transaction having to go through them, just like a bank. We need a way for the payee to know that the previous owners did not sign any earlier transactions. For our purposes, the earliest transaction is the one that counts, so we don't care about later attempts to double-spend. The only way to confirm the absence of a transaction is to be aware of all transactions. In the mint based model, the mint was aware of all transactions and decided which arrived first. To accomplish this without a trusted party, transactions must be publicly announced [1], and we need a system for participants to agree on a single history of the order in which they were received. The payee needs proof that at the time of each transaction, the majority of nodes agreed it was the first received. 3. Timestamp Server The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server. A timestamp server works by taking a hash of a block of items to be timestamped and widely publishing the hash, such as in a newspaper or Usenet post [2-5]. The timestamp proves that the data must have existed at the time, obviously, in order to get into the hash. Each timestamp includes the previous timestamp in its hash, forming a chain, with each additional timestamp reinforcing the ones before it. Hash Hash Owner 2's Signature Owner 1's Private Key Owner 2's Private Key Owner 3's Private Key Block Item Item ... 2 Block Item Item ... Verify Verify Sign Sign 4. Proof-of-Work To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof- of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash [6], rather than newspaper or Usenet posts. The proof-of-work involves scanning for a value that when hashed, such as with SHA-256, the hash begins with a number of zero bits. The average work required is exponential in the number of zero bits required and can be verified by executing a single hash. For our timestamp network, we implement the proof-of-work by incrementing a nonce in the block until a value is found that gives the block's hash the required zero bits. Once the CPU effort has been expended to make it satisfy the proof-of-work, the block cannot be changed without redoing the work. As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it. The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. If a majority of CPU power is controlled by honest nodes, the honest chain will grow the fastest and outpace any competing chains. To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. We will show later that the probability of a slower attacker catching up diminishes exponentially as subsequent blocks are added. To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, the proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they're generated too fast, the difficulty increases. 5. Network The steps to run the network are as follows: 1) New transactions are broadcast to all nodes. 2) Each node collects new transactions into a block. 3) Each node works on finding a difficult proof-of-work for its block. 4) When a node finds a proof-of-work, it broadcasts the block to all nodes. 5) Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent. 6) Nodes express their acceptance of the block by working on creating the next block in the chain, using the hash of the accepted block as the previous hash. Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof- of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one. 3 Block Nonce Tx Tx ... Block Nonce Tx Tx ... Prev Hash Prev Hash New transaction broadcasts do not necessarily need to reach all nodes. As long as they reach many nodes, they will get into a block before long. Block broadcasts are also tolerant of dropped messages. If a node does not receive a block, it will request it when it receives the next block and realizes it missed one. 6. Incentive By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended. The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free. The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth. 7. Reclaiming Disk Space Once the latest transaction in a coin is buried under enough blocks, the spent transactions before it can be discarded to save disk space. To facilitate this without breaking the block's hash, transactions are hashed in a Merkle Tree [7][2][5], with only the root included in the block's hash. Old blocks can then be compacted by stubbing off branches of the tree. The interior hashes do not need to be stored. Block Hash0 Hash1 Hash2 Hash3 Tx0 Tx1 Tx2 Tx3 Block Header (Block Hash) Prev Hash Nonce Root Hash Hash01 Hash23 Block Block Header (Block Hash) Prev Hash Nonce Root Hash Hash01 Hash23 Hash2 Hash3 Tx3 Transactions Hashed in a Merkle Tree After Pruning Tx0-2 from the Block A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory. 4 8. Simplified Payment Verification It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it. Longest Proof-of-Work Chain Block Header Block Header Block Header Prev Hash Nonce Prev Hash Nonce Prev Hash Nonce Merkle Root Merkle Root Merkle Root Hash01 Hash23 Merkle Branch for Tx3 Hash2 Hash3 Tx3 As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification. 9. Combining and Splitting Value Although it would be possible to handle coins individually, it would be unwieldy to make a separate transaction for every cent in a transfer. To allow value to be split and combined, transactions contain multiple inputs and outputs. Normally there will be either a single input from a larger previous transaction or multiple inputs combining smaller amounts, and at most two outputs: one for the payment, and one returning the change, if any, back to the sender. It should be noted that fan-out, where a transaction depends on several transactions, and those transactions depend on many more, is not a problem here. There is never the need to extract a complete standalone copy of a transaction's history. 5 Transaction In Out In ... ... 10. Privacy The traditional banking model achieves a level of privacy by limiting access to information to the parties involved and the trusted third party. The necessity to announce all transactions publicly precludes this method, but privacy can still be maintained by breaking the flow of information in another place: by keeping public keys anonymous. The public can see that someone is sending an amount to someone else, but without information linking the transaction to anyone. This is similar to the level of information released by stock exchanges, where the time and size of individual trades, the "tape", is made public, but without telling who the parties were. Traditional Privacy Model Identities Transactions New Privacy Model Identities Transactions As an additional firewall, a new key pair should be used for each transaction to keep them from being linked to a common owner. Some linking is still unavoidable with multi-input transactions, which necessarily reveal that their inputs were owned by the same owner. The risk is that if the owner of a key is revealed, linking could reveal other transactions that belonged to the same owner. 11. Calculations We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent. The race between the honest chain and an attacker chain can be characterized as a Binomial Random Walk. The success event is the honest chain being extended by one block, increasing its lead by +1, and the failure event is the attacker's chain being extended by one block, reducing the gap by -1. The probability of an attacker catching up from a given deficit is analogous to a Gambler's Ruin problem. Suppose a gambler with unlimited credit starts at a deficit and plays potentially an infinite number of trials to try to reach breakeven. We can calculate the probability he ever reaches breakeven, or that an attacker ever catches up with the honest chain, as follows [8]: p = probability an honest node finds the next block q = probability the attacker finds the next block qz = probability the attacker will ever catch up from z blocks behind Trusted Third Party q ={ 1 if p≤q} z q/pz if pq 6 Counterparty Public Public Given our assumption that p > q, the probability drops exponentially as the number of blocks the attacker has to catch up with increases. With the odds against him, if he doesn't make a lucky lunge forward early on, his chances become vanishingly small as he falls further behind. We now consider how long the recipient of a new transaction needs to wait before being sufficiently certain the sender can't change the transaction. We assume the sender is an attacker who wants to make the recipient believe he paid him for a while, then switch it to pay back to himself after some time has passed. The receiver will be alerted when that happens, but the sender hopes it will be too late. The receiver generates a new key pair and gives the public key to the sender shortly before signing. This prevents the sender from preparing a chain of blocks ahead of time by working on it continuously until he is lucky enough to get far enough ahead, then executing the transaction at that moment. Once the transaction is sent, the dishonest sender starts working in secret on a parallel chain containing an alternate version of his transaction. The recipient waits until the transaction has been added to a block and z blocks have been linked after it. He doesn't know the exact amount of progress the attacker has made, but assuming the honest blocks took the average expected time per block, the attacker's potential progress will be a Poisson distribution with expected value: = z qp To get the probability the attacker could still catch up now, we multiply the Poisson density for each amount of progress he could have made by the probability he could catch up from that point: ∞ ke−{q/pz−k ifk≤z} ∑k=0 k!⋅ 1 ifkz Rearranging to avoid summing the infinite tail of the distribution... z ke− z−k 1−∑k=0 k! 1−q/p Converting to C code... #include <math.h> double AttackerSuccessProbability(double q, int z) { double p = 1.0 - q; double lambda = z * (q / p); double sum = 1.0; int i, k; for (k = 0; k <= z; k++) { double poisson = exp(-lambda); for (i = 1; i <= k; i++) poisson *= lambda / i; sum -= poisson * (1 - pow(q / p, z - k)); } return sum; } 7 Running some results, we can see the probability drop off exponentially with z. q=0.1 z=0 P=1.0000000 z=1 P=0.2045873 z=2 P=0.0509779 z=3 P=0.0131722 z=4 P=0.0034552 z=5 P=0.0009137 z=6 P=0.0002428 z=7 P=0.0000647 z=8 P=0.0000173 z=9 P=0.0000046 z=10 P=0.0000012 q=0.3 z=0 P=1.0000000 z=5 P=0.1773523 z=10 P=0.0416605 z=15 P=0.0101008 z=20 P=0.0024804 z=25 P=0.0006132 z=30 P=0.0001522 z=35 P=0.0000379 z=40 P=0.0000095 z=45 P=0.0000024 z=50 P=0.0000006 Solving for P less than 0.1%... P < 0.001 q=0.10 z=5 q=0.15 z=8 q=0.20 z=11 q=0.25 z=15 q=0.30 z=24 q=0.35 z=41 q=0.40 z=89 q=0.45 z=340 12. Conclusion We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. We started with the usual framework of coins made from digital signatures, which provides strong control of ownership, but is incomplete without a way to prevent double-spending. To solve this, we proposed a peer-to-peer network using proof-of-work to record a public history of transactions that quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker to change if honest nodes control a majority of CPU power. The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism. 8 References [1] W. Dai, "b-money," http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. [2] H. Massias, X.S. Avila, and J.-J. Quisquater, "Design of a secure timestamping service with minimal trust requirements," In 20th Symposium on Information Theory in the Benelux, May 1999. [3] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "How to time-stamp a digital document," In Journal of Cryptology, vol 3, no 2, pages 99-111, 1991. [4] D. Bayer, S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Improving the efficiency and reliability of digital time-stamping," In Sequences II: Methods in Communication, Security and Computer Science, pages 329-334, 1993. [5] S. Haber, W.S. Stornetta, "Secure names for bit-strings," In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 28-35, April 1997. [6] A. Back, "Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure," http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002. [7] R.C. Merkle, "Protocols for public key cryptosystems," In Proc. 1980 Symposium on Security and Privacy, IEEE Computer Society, pages 122-133, April 1980. [8] W. Feller, "An introduction to probability theory and its applications," 1957. 9
Jeetjha-07 / ML Sales Prediciton ProjectA Machine Learning project that predicts Total Sales, Sales Method, and Units Sold using Linear Regression, Decision Trees, and Random Forest. This project also demonstrates complete DevOps workflow using Git & GitHub — including branching, merging, stashing, and rebasing — with a clean project structure and Jupyter notebook-based analysis
