Nabil Ali Mohammed Abd AL Azeez (Arabic:نبيل علي) (3 January 1938 – 27 January 2016) was an Egyptian scientist, writer, and intellectual who worked in the field of natural language processing and computational linguistics. Ali is considered a pioneer of Arabic language computing, making significant innovations in early computational linguistics. == Education and career == Ali earned a bachelor's degree in Aeronautical Engineering in 1960, and a master's degree in 1967. In 1971, he earned a PhD in Aeronautics. From 1961 to 1972 Ali worked as an engineering officer in the Egyptian Air Force, specializing in maintenance and training. In 1972, he shifted focus to computing, and from 1972 to 1977 he worked as a computer manager at Egyptair. While in this position, Ali introduced the first automated reservation system for airlines in the Arab world. He later held various computing positions in Egypt, Kuwait, Europe, Canada and the US. Ali started working for Sakhr Software, an Arabic language technology company, in 1983. From 1985 to 1999, he was vice president of Sakhr's council for Research and Development. As a director of the Multilingual Advanced Systems Foundation and project manager at the Egyptian National Company for Scientific and Technical Information, Ali did extensive research on information culture and artificial intelligence relating to the Arabic language. Over the course of his career, Ali developed more than 20 educational programs relating to computational linguistics. He developed the first Arabic lexical database and the first knowledge base for Arabic poetry, as well as many other pieces of Arabic language software. == Awards == 1994: General Book Authority Award for Best Book (in the field of future studies). 2003: General Book Authority Award for Best Culture Book (in the field of "Challenges of the Information Age"). 2007: General Book Authority "Innovation in Information Technology" Award. 2012: King Faisal International Award, with Professor Ali Helmy Mousa, in the field of computer processing of the Arabic Language. == Works == Arabic Language and Computer (Research study), Dar Localization, 1988. Al Arab and the Information Age, Knowledge World Series No. 184, April 1994. Arab Culture and the Information Age: A Vision for the Future of Arab Culture Discourse, World of Knowledge Series, No. 265 January 2001. The Digital Gap: an Arab Vision for a Knowledge Society (in partnership with Dr. Nadia Hegazy), World of Knowledge Series, No. 318 August 2005. The Arab Mind and the Knowledge Society: Manifestations of the Crisis and Suggestions for Solutions, Part 1, The World of Knowledge Series, No. 369, November 2009. The Arab Mind and the Knowledge Society: Manifestations of the Crisis and Suggestions for Solutions, Part 2, The World of Knowledge Series, No. 370, December 2009. == Tribute == On 3 January 2020, Google Doodle celebrated Nabil Ali Mohamed's 82nd Birthday.
Fred (chatbot)
Fred, or FRED, was an early chatbot written by Robby Garner. == History == The name Fred was initially suggested by Karen Lindsey, and then Robby jokingly came up with an acronym, "Functional Response Emulation Device." Fred has also been implemented as a Java application by Paco Nathan called JFRED Archived 2008-08-24 at the Wayback Machine. Fred Chatterbot is designed to explore Natural Language communications between people and computer programs. In particular, this is a study of conversation between people and ways that a computer program can learn from other people's conversations to make its own conversations. Fred used a minimalistic "stimulus-response" approach. It worked by storing a database of statements and their responses, and made its own reply by looking up the input statements made by a user and then rendering the corresponding response from the database. This approach simplified the complexity of the rule base, but required expert coding and editing for modifications. Fred was a predecessor to Albert One, which Garner used in 1998 and 1999 to win the Loebner Prize.
The Raimones
The Raimones (stylized as THE RAiMONES) is a 2017 generative music project that utilized artificial intelligence to compose music in the style of the American punk rock band The Ramones. Developed by Matthias Frey, a researcher at Sony CSL Tokyo, the project was an early experiment in applying deep learning to high-energy, minimalist musical genres. == Technical Development == The project utilized Long short-term memory (LSTM) recurrent neural networks to generate musical structures and lyrics. The model was trained on a dataset consisting of 130 Ramones songs in MIDI format and the band's complete lyrical catalog. The technical framework was built using Python and Jupyter Notebook, drawing influence from the character-level RNN text generation models popularized by Andrej Karpathy. Unlike contemporary AI music projects that focused on the harmonic complexities of classical or pop music, THE RAiMONES sought to determine if neural networks could replicate the "1-2-3-4" rhythmic consistency and formulaic nature of early punk. == "I'm Alive" == The primary output of the project was the song "I'm Alive," released in 2017. The work is described as a form of "augmented intelligence," a hybrid approach where the AI provides the compositional foundation and human musicians handle the arrangement and performance. The song was recorded by the musician Mr. Ratboy (Gilbert Avondet). Avondet's involvement provided a stylistic link to the subject material, as he had previously served as a touring guitarist for Marky Ramone and the Intruders in 1996. The project's discography has since been made available on major streaming platforms, including Apple Music. == Reception and Significance == The project has been cited as a "proof of concept" for AI's ability to tackle "noisy" and aggressive aesthetics. In 2019, the Belgian magazine Knack Focus profiled the project alongside other AI pioneers such as Holly Herndon, noting the project's attempt to recreate the sound of "deceased legends" while maintaining a distinct, machine-like quality. It has also been featured in academic settings, such as at UC Santa Cruz, as a case study for AI-driven genre mimicry.
Diagnosis (artificial intelligence)
As a subfield in artificial intelligence, diagnosis is concerned with the development of algorithms and techniques that are able to determine whether the behaviour of a system is correct. If the system is not functioning correctly, the algorithm should be able to determine, as accurately as possible, which part of the system is failing, and which kind of fault it is facing. The computation is based on observations, which provide information on the current behaviour. The expression diagnosis also refers to the answer of the question of whether the system is malfunctioning or not, and to the process of computing the answer. This word comes from the medical context where a diagnosis is the process of identifying a disease by its symptoms. == Example == An example of diagnosis is the process of a garage mechanic with an automobile. The mechanic will first try to detect any abnormal behavior based on the observations on the car and his knowledge of this type of vehicle. If he finds out that the behavior is abnormal, the mechanic will try to refine his diagnosis by using new observations and possibly testing the system, until he discovers the faulty component; the mechanic plays an important role in the vehicle diagnosis. == Expert diagnosis == The expert diagnosis (or diagnosis by expert system) is based on experience with the system. Using this experience, a mapping is built that efficiently associates the observations to the corresponding diagnoses. The experience can be provided: By a human operator. In this case, the human knowledge must be translated into a computer language. By examples of the system behaviour. In this case, the examples must be classified as correct or faulty (and, in the latter case, by the type of fault). Machine learning methods are then used to generalize from the examples. The main drawbacks of these methods are: The difficulty acquiring the expertise. The expertise is typically only available after a long period of use of the system (or similar systems). Thus, these methods are unsuitable for safety- or mission-critical systems (such as a nuclear power plant, or a robot operating in space). Moreover, the acquired expert knowledge can never be guaranteed to be complete. In case a previously unseen behaviour occurs, leading to an unexpected observation, it is impossible to give a diagnosis. The complexity of the learning. The off-line process of building an expert system can require a large amount of time and computer memory. The size of the final expert system. As the expert system aims to map any observation to a diagnosis, it will in some cases require a huge amount of storage space. The lack of robustness. If even a small modification is made on the system, the process of constructing the expert system must be repeated. A slightly different approach is to build an expert system from a model of the system rather than directly from an expertise. An example is the computation of a diagnoser for the diagnosis of discrete event systems. This approach can be seen as model-based, but it benefits from some advantages and suffers some drawbacks of the expert system approach. == Model-based diagnosis == Model-based diagnosis is an example of abductive reasoning using a model of the system. In general, it works as follows: We have a model that describes the behaviour of the system (or artefact). The model is an abstraction of the behaviour of the system and can be incomplete. In particular, the faulty behaviour is generally little-known, and the faulty model may thus not be represented. Given observations of the system, the diagnosis system simulates the system using the model, and compares the observations actually made to the observations predicted by the simulation. The modelling can be simplified by the following rules (where A b {\displaystyle Ab\,} is the Abnormal predicate): ¬ A b ( S ) ⇒ I n t 1 ∧ O b s 1 {\displaystyle \neg Ab(S)\Rightarrow Int1\wedge Obs1} A b ( S ) ⇒ I n t 2 ∧ O b s 2 {\displaystyle Ab(S)\Rightarrow Int2\wedge Obs2} (fault model) The semantics of these formulae is the following: if the behaviour of the system is not abnormal (i.e. if it is normal), then the internal (unobservable) behaviour will be I n t 1 {\displaystyle Int1\,} and the observable behaviour O b s 1 {\displaystyle Obs1\,} . Otherwise, the internal behaviour will be I n t 2 {\displaystyle Int2\,} and the observable behaviour O b s 2 {\displaystyle Obs2\,} . Given the observations O b s {\displaystyle Obs\,} , the problem is to determine whether the system behaviour is normal or not ( ¬ A b ( S ) {\displaystyle \neg Ab(S)\,} or A b ( S ) {\displaystyle Ab(S)\,} ). This is an example of abductive reasoning. == Diagnosability == A system is said to be diagnosable if whatever the behavior of the system, we will be able to determine without ambiguity a unique diagnosis. The problem of diagnosability is very important when designing a system because on one hand one may want to reduce the number of sensors to reduce the cost, and on the other hand one may want to increase the number of sensors to increase the probability of detecting a faulty behavior. Several algorithms for dealing with these problems exist. One class of algorithms answers the question whether a system is diagnosable; another class looks for sets of sensors that make the system diagnosable, and optionally comply to criteria such as cost optimization. The diagnosability of a system is generally computed from the model of the system. In applications using model-based diagnosis, such a model is already present and doesn't need to be built from scratch.
2023 Bilderberg Conference
The 2023 Bilderberg Conference or Bilderberg Club was held between May 18–21, 2023 at the Pestana Palace hotel in Lisbon, Portugal. The 2023 meeting was the 69th edition of the event. A Bilderberg Group press release stated that there were approximately 130 participants from 23 countries. Established in 1954 by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, Bilderberg conferences (or meetings) are an annual private gathering of the European and North American political and business elite. Events are attended by between 120 and 150 people each year invited by the Bilderberg Group's steering committee; including prominent politicians, CEOs, national security experts, academics and journalists. The 2023 conference received some media attention due to the participation of several major players in the artificial intelligence space, such as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Google DeepMind chief Demis Hassabis and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt. Bilderberg conferences operate under Chatham House Rule, meaning that participants are cannot disclose the identity or affiliation of any particular speaker. There were no press conferences during or after the event, as is customary. According to The Guardian, the paper's journalists were able to approach one high-ranking attendee, economist Victor Halberstadt, in a Lisbon pharmacy, but he denied his identity before jumping into a car and heading back to his hotel. == Agenda == The key topics for discussion at the 2023 Bilderberg Conference were announced on the Bilderberg website shortly before the meeting. These topics included: == Participants == A list of 128 participants was published on the Bilderberg website. This list may not be complete, as a source connected to the Bilderberg group told The Daily Telegraph in 2013 that some attendees do not have their names publicized. Oscar Stenström, Sweden’s chief negotiator for NATO membership, was reported to have been seen at the venue despite his name not being on the list.
Mountain car problem
Mountain Car, a standard testing domain in Reinforcement learning, is a problem in which an under-powered car must drive up a steep hill. Since gravity is stronger than the car's engine, even at full throttle, the car cannot simply accelerate up the steep slope. The car is situated in a valley and must learn to leverage potential energy by driving up the opposite hill before the car is able to make it to the goal at the top of the rightmost hill. The domain has been used as a test bed in various reinforcement learning papers. == Introduction == The mountain car problem, although fairly simple, is commonly applied because it requires a reinforcement learning agent to learn on two continuous variables: position and velocity. For any given state (position and velocity) of the car, the agent is given the possibility of driving left, driving right, or not using the engine at all. In the standard version of the problem, the agent receives a negative reward at every time step when the goal is not reached; the agent has no information about the goal until an initial success. == History == The mountain car problem appeared first in Andrew Moore's PhD thesis (1990). It was later more strictly defined in Singh and Sutton's reinforcement learning paper with eligibility traces. The problem became more widely studied when Sutton and Barto added it to their book Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (1998). Throughout the years many versions of the problem have been used, such as those which modify the reward function, termination condition, and the start state. == Techniques used to solve mountain car == Q-learning and similar techniques for mapping discrete states to discrete actions need to be extended to be able to deal with the continuous state space of the problem. Approaches often fall into one of two categories, state space discretization or function approximation. === Discretization === In this approach, two continuous state variables are pushed into discrete states by bucketing each continuous variable into multiple discrete states. This approach works with properly tuned parameters but a disadvantage is information gathered from one state is not used to evaluate another state. Tile coding can be used to improve discretization and involves continuous variables mapping into sets of buckets offset from one another. Each step of training has a wider impact on the value function approximation because when the offset grids are summed, the information is diffused. === Function approximation === Function approximation is another way to solve the mountain car. By choosing a set of basis functions beforehand, or by generating them as the car drives, the agent can approximate the value function at each state. Unlike the step-wise version of the value function created with discretization, function approximation can more cleanly estimate the true smooth function of the mountain car domain. === Eligibility traces === One aspect of the problem involves the delay of actual reward. The agent is not able to learn about the goal until a successful completion. Given a naive approach for each trial the car can only backup the reward of the goal slightly. This is a problem for naive discretization because each discrete state will only be backed up once, taking a larger number of episodes to learn the problem. This problem can be alleviated via the mechanism of eligibility traces, which will automatically backup the reward given to states before, dramatically increasing the speed of learning. Eligibility traces can be viewed as a bridge from temporal difference learning methods to Monte Carlo methods. == Technical details == The mountain car problem has undergone many iterations. This section focuses on the standard well-defined version from Sutton (2008). === State variables === Two-dimensional continuous state space. V e l o c i t y = ( − 0.07 , 0.07 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=(-0.07,0.07)} P o s i t i o n = ( − 1.2 , 0.6 ) {\displaystyle Position=(-1.2,0.6)} === Actions === One-dimensional discrete action space. m o t o r = ( l e f t , n e u t r a l , r i g h t ) {\displaystyle motor=(left,neutral,right)} === Reward === For every time step: r e w a r d = − 1 {\displaystyle reward=-1} === Update function === For every time step: A c t i o n = [ − 1 , 0 , 1 ] {\displaystyle Action=[-1,0,1]} V e l o c i t y = V e l o c i t y + ( A c t i o n ) ∗ 0.001 + cos ( 3 ∗ P o s i t i o n ) ∗ ( − 0.0025 ) {\displaystyle Velocity=Velocity+(Action)0.001+\cos(3Position)(-0.0025)} P o s i t i o n = P o s i t i o n + V e l o c i t y {\displaystyle Position=Position+Velocity} === Starting condition === Optionally, many implementations include randomness in both parameters to show better generalized learning. P o s i t i o n = − 0.5 {\displaystyle Position=-0.5} V e l o c i t y = 0.0 {\displaystyle Velocity=0.0} === Termination condition === End the simulation when: P o s i t i o n ≥ 0.6 {\displaystyle Position\geq 0.6} == Variations == There are many versions of the mountain car which deviate in different ways from the standard model. Variables that vary include but are not limited to changing the constants (gravity and steepness) of the problem so specific tuning for specific policies become irrelevant and altering the reward function to affect the agent's ability to learn in a different manner. An example is changing the reward to be equal to the distance from the goal, or changing the reward to zero everywhere and one at the goal. Additionally, a 3D mountain car can be used, with a 4D continuous state space.
DARPA Prize Competitions
Over the years, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has conducted numerous prize competitions to spur innovation. A prize competition allows DARPA to establish an ambitious goal, opening the door to novel approaches from the public that might otherwise appear too risky for experts in a particular field to pursue. == Statutory authorities == In 1999, Congress provided prize competition authority to DARPA in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (P.L. 106–65), 10 U.S.C. § 4025, formerly 10 U.S.C. §2374a. DARPA also conducts prize competitions under the America COMPETES Act, 15 U.S.C. § 3719. == Recent prize competitions == DARPA Grand Challenge (2004 and 2005) was a prize competition to spur the development of autonomous vehicle technologies. The $1 million prize went unclaimed as no vehicles could complete the challenging desert route from Barstow, CA, to Primm, NV, on March 13, 2004. A year later, on October 8, 2005, the Stanford Racing Team won the $2 million prize during the second competition of the Grand Challenge in the desert Southwest near the California/Nevada state line. DARPA Urban Challenge (2007) required the competitors to build an autonomous vehicle capable of driving in traffic and performing complex maneuvers such as merging, passing, parking, and negotiating intersections. On November 3, 2007, the Carnegie Mellon Team won the $2 million prize, and its vehicle became the first autonomous vehicle that interacted with both manned and unmanned vehicle traffic in an urban environment. DARPA Network Challenge (Red Balloon Challenge) (2009) explored the roles that the Internet and social networking play in solving broad-scope, time-critical problems. On December 5, 2009, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology team won $40,000 by locating the ten moored, eight-foot, red weather balloons at ten places in the United States within seven hours. DARPA Digital Manufacturing Analysis, Correlation and Estimation Challenge (DMACE) (2010) was a three-month contest to showcase the potential of digital manufacturing of advanced materials. The University of California at Santa Barbara team won a $50,000 prize for crushing 180 digitally manufactured (DM) titanium mesh spheres with the most accurate predictive model of the components’ properties. DARPA Shredder Challenge (2011) was to identify and assess potential capabilities and vulnerabilities to sensitive information in the national security community. Participating teams must download the images of the documents shredded into more than 10,000 pieces from the Challenge website, reconstruct the documents, and solve the five puzzles. Of almost 9,000 teams, the San Francisco-based All Your Shreds Are Belong to U.S team won the $50,000 prize. DARPA UAVForge Challenge (2011-2012) aimed to build and test a user-intuitive, backpack-portable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) that could quietly fly in and out of critical environments to conduct sustained surveillance for up to three hours. The $100,000 prize was not claimed because none of the 140 teams met the technical matrix. DARPA Cash for Locating & Identifying Quick Response Codes (CLIQR) Quest Challenge (2012) explored the role the Internet and social media played in the timely communication, wide-area team-building, and urgent mobilization required to solve broad scope, time-critical problems. The challenge offered $40,000 to the first individual or team that could locate seven posters appearing in U.S. cities bearing the DARPA logo and a quick response code (QR) within 15 days. No team found and submitted all seven codes. DARPA Fast Adaptable Next-Generation Ground Vehicle (FANG) Challenge (2012-2013) was to use three competitions for the design of an infantry fighting vehicle, culminating in prototypes. In April 2013, DARPA awarded US$1 million to a three-man team during the first competition. DARPA decided not to proceed with the second and third competitions as originally planned and transitioned the technologies to the defense and commercial industry through the Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII). DARPA Spectrum Challenge (2013-2014) sought to demonstrate how a software-defined radio can use a given communication channel in the presence of other users and interfering signals. Three teams emerged as the overall winners, winning a total of $150,000 in prizes. DARPA Chikungunya (CHIKV) Challenge (2014-2015) was a health-related effort to develop the most accurate predictions of CHIKV cases for all Western Hemisphere countries and territories between September 2014 and March 2015. On May 12, 2015, DARPA awarded $500,000 in prizes to the 11 winners of the competition during a scientific review DARPA Robotics Challenge (DRC) (2013-2015) aimed to develop semi-autonomous ground robots that could do "complex tasks in dangerous, degraded, human-engineered environments." A South Korean team won the first prize of $2 million, and two U.S. teams won $1 million and $500,000 as second and third winners. DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC) (2014 - 2016) was to “create automatic defensive systems capable of reasoning about flaws, formulating patches and deploying them on a network in real time.” The top three winners were awarded prizes of $2 million, $1 million, and $750,000, respectively. DARPA Spectrum Collaboration Challenge (SC2) (2016-2019) aimed to encourage the development of AI-enabled wireless networks to “ensure that the exponentially growing number of military and civilian wireless devices would have full access to the increasingly crowded electromagnetic spectrum.” A team from the University of Florida won the overall top prize of US$2 million at the final SC2 competition. DARPA Subterranean (SubT) Challenge (2017-2021) was to develop robotic technologies to map, navigate, search and exploit complex underground environments. The first-place winners of the system final competition and of the virtual final competition were awarded $2 million and $750,000, respectively, with multiple prizes awarded to the second and third-place winners. DARPA Launch Challenge (2018-2020) was a $12 million satellite launch challenge to demonstrate responsive and flexible space launch capabilities from the small launch providers and was to culminate in two separate launch competitions where the competitors must launch a satellite to low Earth orbit (LEO) within days of each other at different locations in the United States. The competition ended without a winner. DARPA Forecasting Floats in Turbulence (FFT) Challenge (2021) was to spur technologies that could predict the location of sea drifters or floats within 10 days. DARPA awarded $25,000 for first place, with prizes of $15,000 and $10,000 for second place and third place. DARPA Artificial Intelligence Cyber Challenge (AIxCC) (2023–2025) was a two-year challenge and asks competitors to design novel AI systems to secure critical software code on which Americans rely. The total prize money is $29.5 million. In March 2024, the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) partnered with DARPA, contributing an additional $20 million to the competition's prize pool to address software vulnerabilities in medical devices, hospital IT, and biotech equipment. AIxCC collaborates with Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Anthropic, Linux Foundation, Open Source Security Foundation, Black Hat USA, and DEF CON, all of which provide AIxCC with access to large language models. In August 2024, AIxCC held the semifinal at DEF CON in Las Vegas. DARPA and ARPA-H tested all 42 submissions by running them through various open-source coding projects with deliberately injected vulnerabilities and scored the tools based on their effectiveness in identifying and fixing security flaws. Seven teams, each winning $2 million in the semifinals, competed in the final round of the AIxCC at the August 2025 DEF CON conference. Team Atlanta won first place with a $4 million prize for its cyber reasoning systems, which identified and patched vulnerabilities across 54 million lines of code. DARPA Triage Challenge (2023 – 2026) aims to spur the development of novel physiological features for medical triage, with a total prize money of $7 million. In October 2024, Challenge Event 1 was held in Perry, Georgia, featuring to-scale replicas of disaster sites such as an airplane crash and Hurricane Katrina, and teams competed based on how closely their data aligned with the agency’s official data and how quickly and accurately their autonomous systems could identify individuals most urgently in need of medical care. DARPA concluded the second year of competitions and, in November 2025, named the top performers in systems and data categories, which will advance to the final 2026 competition. The DARPA Lift Challenge (2025-2026) is for participants to design unmanned aerial systems capable of carrying up to four times their own weight, with a minimum payload of 110 pounds. Acco