The Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act is a piece of legislation introduced by California Representative Adam Schiff in the United States Congress on April 9, 2024. It concerns the transparency of companies regarding their use of copyrighted work to train their generative artificial intelligence (AI) models. The legislation requires the submission of a notice regarding the identity and the uniform resource locator (URL) address of the copyrighted works used in the training data to the Register of Copyrights at least 30 days before the public release of the new or updated version of the AI model; it does not ban the use of copyrighted works for AI training. The bill's requirements would apply retroactively to prior AI models. Violation penalties would start at US$5,000. The legislation does not have a maximum penalty assessment that can be charged. The bill by Schiff was introduced a few days after The New York Times published an article regarding the business activities of major tech firms, including Google and Meta, in the training of their generative AI platforms on April 6, 2024. The legislation is supported by the Professional Photographers of America (PPA), SAG-AFTRA, the Writers Guild of America, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and others.
Cyber attribution
In the area of computer security, cyber attribution is an attribution of cybercrime, i.e., finding who perpetrated a cyberattack. Uncovering a perpetrator may give insights into various security issues, such as infiltration methods, communication channels, etc., and may help in enacting specific countermeasures. Cyber attribution is a costly endeavor requiring considerable resources and expertise in cyber forensic analysis. For governments and other major players dealing with cybercrime would require not only technical solutions, but legal and political ones as well, and for the latter ones cyber attribution is crucial. Attributing a cyberattack is difficult, and of limited interest to companies that are targeted by cyberattacks. In contrast, secret services often have a compelling interest in finding out whether a state is behind the attack. A further challenge in attribution of cyberattacks is the possibility of a false flag attack, where the actual perpetrator makes it appear that someone else caused the attack. Every stage of the attack may leave artifacts, such as entries in log files, that can be used to help determine the attacker's goals and identity. In the aftermath of an attack, investigators often begin by saving as many artifacts as they can find, and then try to determine the attacker.
KiSAO
The Kinetic Simulation Algorithm Ontology (KiSAO) supplies information about existing algorithms available for the simulation of systems biology models, their characterization and interrelationships. KiSAO is part of the BioModels.net project and of the COMBINE initiative. == Structure == KiSAO consists of three main branches: simulation algorithm simulation algorithm characteristic simulation algorithm parameter The elements of each algorithm branch are linked to characteristic and parameter branches using has characteristic and has parameter relationships accordingly. The algorithm branch itself is hierarchically structured using relationships which denote that the descendant algorithms were derived from, or specify, more general ancestors.
Sieve of Eratosthenes
In mathematics, the sieve of Eratosthenes is an ancient algorithm for finding all prime numbers up to any given limit. It does so by iteratively marking as composite (i.e., not prime) the multiples of each prime, starting with the first prime number, 2. The multiples of a given prime are generated as a sequence of numbers starting from that prime, with constant difference between them that is equal to that prime. This is the sieve's key distinction from using trial division to sequentially test each candidate number for divisibility by each prime. Once all the multiples of each discovered prime have been marked as composites, the remaining unmarked numbers are primes. The earliest known reference to the sieve (Ancient Greek: κόσκινον Ἐρατοσθένους, kóskinon Eratosthénous) is in Nicomachus of Gerasa's Introduction to Arithmetic, an early 2nd-century CE book which attributes it to Eratosthenes of Cyrene, a 3rd-century BCE Greek mathematician, though describing the sieving by odd numbers instead of by primes. One of a number of prime number sieves, it is one of the most efficient ways to find all of the smaller primes. It may be used to find primes in arithmetic progressions. == Overview == A prime number is a natural number that has exactly two distinct natural number divisors: the number 1 and itself. To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to a given integer n by Eratosthenes's method: Create a list of consecutive integers from 2 through n: (2, 3, 4, ..., n). Initially, let p equal 2, the smallest prime number. Enumerate the multiples of p by counting in increments of p from 2p to n, and mark them in the list (these will be 2p, 3p, 4p, ...; the p itself should not be marked). Find the smallest number in the list greater than p that is not marked. If there was no such number, stop. Otherwise, let p now equal this new number (which is the next prime), and repeat from step 3. When the algorithm terminates, the numbers remaining not marked in the list are all the primes below n. The main idea here is that every value given to p will be prime, because if it were composite it would be marked as a multiple of some other, smaller prime. Note that some of the numbers may be marked more than once (e.g., 15 will be marked both for 3 and 5). The key property of the sieve is that only additions are needed, no multiplications or divisions are used. As a refinement, it is sufficient to mark the numbers in step 3 starting from p2, as all the smaller multiples of p will have already been marked at that point. This means that the algorithm is allowed to terminate in step 4 when p2 is greater than n. Another refinement is to initially list odd numbers only, (3, 5, ..., n), and count in increments of 2p in step 3, thus marking only odd multiples of p. This actually appears in the original algorithm. This can be generalized with wheel factorization, forming the initial list only from numbers coprime with the first few primes and not just from odds (i.e., numbers coprime with 2), and counting in the correspondingly adjusted increments so that only such multiples of p are generated that are coprime with those small primes, in the first place. === Example === To find all the prime numbers less than or equal to 30, proceed as follows. First, generate a list of natural numbers from 2 to 30: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The first number in the list is 2; cross out every 2nd number in the list after 2 by counting up from 2 in increments of 2 (these will be all the multiples of 2 in the list): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number in the list after 2 is 3; cross out every 3rd number in the list after 3 by counting up from 3 in increments of 3 (these will be all the multiples of 3 in the list): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number not yet crossed out in the list after 3 is 5; cross out every 5th number in the list after 5 by counting up from 5 in increments of 5 (i.e. all the multiples of 5): 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 The next number not yet crossed out in the list after 5 is 7; the next step would be to cross out every 7th number in the list after 7, but they are all already crossed out at this point, as these numbers (14, 21, 28) are also multiples of smaller primes because 7 × 7 is greater than 30. The numbers not crossed out at this point in the list are all the prime numbers below 30: 2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 == Algorithm and variants == === Pseudocode === The sieve of Eratosthenes can be expressed in pseudocode, as follows: algorithm Sieve of Eratosthenes is input: an integer n > 1. output: all prime numbers from 2 through n. let A be an array of Boolean values, indexed by integers 2 to n, initially all set to true. for i = 2, 3, 4, ..., not exceeding √n do if A[i] is true for j = i2, i2+i, i2+2i, i2+3i, ..., not exceeding n do set A[j] := false return all i such that A[i] is true. This algorithm produces all primes not greater than n. It includes a common optimization, which is to start enumerating the multiples of each prime i from i2. The time complexity of this algorithm is O(n log log n), provided the array update is an O(1) operation, as is usually the case. === Segmented sieve === As Sorenson notes, the problem with the sieve of Eratosthenes is not the number of operations it performs but rather its memory requirements. For large n, the range of primes may not fit in memory; worse, even for moderate n, its cache use is highly suboptimal. The algorithm walks through the entire array A, exhibiting almost no locality of reference. A solution to these problems is offered by segmented sieves, where only portions of the range are sieved at a time. These have been known since the 1970s, and work as follows: Divide the range 2 through n into segments of some size Δ ≥ √n. Find the primes in the first (i.e. the lowest) segment, using the regular sieve. For each of the following segments, in increasing order, with m being the segment's topmost value, find the primes in it as follows: Set up a Boolean array of size Δ. Mark as non-prime the positions in the array corresponding to the multiples of each prime p ≤ √m found so far, by enumerating its multiples in steps of p starting from the lowest multiple of p between m - Δ and m. The remaining non-marked positions in the array correspond to the primes in the segment. It is not necessary to mark any multiples of these primes, because all of these primes are larger than √m, as for k ≥ 1, one has ( k Δ + 1 ) 2 > ( k + 1 ) Δ {\displaystyle (k\Delta +1)^{2}>(k+1)\Delta } . If Δ is chosen to be √n, the space complexity of the algorithm is O(√n), while the time complexity is the same as that of the regular sieve. For ranges with upper limit n so large that the sieving primes below √n as required by the page segmented sieve of Eratosthenes cannot fit in memory, a slower but much more space-efficient sieve like the pseudosquares prime sieve, developed by Jonathan P. Sorenson, can be used instead. === Incremental sieve === An incremental formulation of the sieve generates primes indefinitely (i.e., without an upper bound) by interleaving the generation of primes with the generation of their multiples (so that primes can be found in gaps between the multiples), where the multiples of each prime p are generated directly by counting up from the square of the prime in increments of p (or 2p for odd primes). The generation must be initiated only when the prime's square is reached, to avoid adverse effects on efficiency. It can be expressed symbolically under the dataflow paradigm as primes = [2, 3, ...] \ [[p², p²+p, ...] for p in primes], using list comprehension notation with \ denoting set subtraction of arithmetic progressions of numbers. Primes can also be produced by iteratively sieving out the composites through divisibility testing by sequential primes, one prime at a time. It is not the sieve of Eratosthenes but is often confused with it, even though the sieve of Eratosthenes directly generates the composites instead of testing for them. Trial division has worse theoretical complexity than that of the sieve of Eratosthenes in generating ranges of primes. When testing each prime, the optimal trial division algorithm uses all prime numbers not exceeding its square root, whereas the sieve of Eratosthenes produces each composite from its prime factors only, and gets the primes "for free", between the composites. The widely known 1975 functional sieve code by David Turner is often presented as an example of the sieve of Eratosthenes but is actually a sub-optimal trial division sieve. == Algorithmic complexity == The sieve of Eratosthenes is a popular way to benchmark computer performance. The time complexity of calculating all primes below n in the random access machine model is O(n log log n) ope
Behavior selection algorithm
In artificial intelligence, a behavior selection algorithm, or action selection algorithm, is an algorithm that selects appropriate behaviors or actions for one or more intelligent agents. In game artificial intelligence, it selects behaviors or actions for one or more non-player characters. Common behavior selection algorithms include: Finite-state machines Hierarchical finite-state machines Decision trees Behavior trees Hierarchical task networks Hierarchical control systems Utility systems Dialogue tree (for selecting what to say) == Related concepts == In application programming, run-time selection of the behavior of a specific method is referred to as the strategy design pattern.
Microsoft Forms
Microsoft Forms (formerly Office 365 Forms) is an online survey creator, part of Microsoft 365. == Usage == Forms allows users to create surveys and quizzes with automatic marking. The data can be exported to Microsoft Excel, Power BI dashboards and viewed live using the Present feature. == Phishing and fraud == Due to a wave of phishing attacks utilizing Microsoft 365 in early 2021, Microsoft uses algorithms to automatically detect and block phishing attempts with Microsoft Forms. Also, Microsoft advises Forms users not to submit personal information, such as passwords, in a form or survey. It also place a similar advisory underneath the “Submit” button in every form created with Forms, warning users not to give out their password.
Algorithm characterizations
Algorithm characterizations are attempts to formalize the word algorithm. Algorithm does not have a generally accepted formal definition. Researchers are actively working on this problem. This article will present some of the "characterizations" of the notion of "algorithm" in more detail. == The problem of definition == Over the last 200 years, the definition of the algorithm has become more complicated and detailed as researchers have tried to pin down the term. Indeed, there may be more than one type of "algorithm". But most agree that algorithm has something to do with defining generalized processes for the creation of "output" integers from other "input" integers – "input parameters" arbitrary and infinite in extent, or limited in extent but still variable—by the manipulation of distinguishable symbols (counting numbers) with finite collections of rules that a person can perform with paper and pencil. The most common number-manipulation schemes—both in formal mathematics and in routine life—are: (1) the recursive functions calculated by a person with paper and pencil, and (2) the Turing machine or its Turing equivalents—the primitive register-machine or "counter-machine" model, the random-access machine model (RAM), the random-access stored-program machine model (RASP) and its functional equivalent "the computer". When we are doing "arithmetic" we are really calculating by the use of "recursive functions" in the shorthand algorithms we learned in grade school, for example, adding and subtracting. The proofs that every "recursive function" we can calculate by hand we can compute by machine and vice versa—note the usage of the words calculate versus compute—is remarkable. But this equivalence together with the thesis (unproven assertion) that this includes every calculation/computation indicates why so much emphasis has been placed upon the use of Turing-equivalent machines in the definition of specific algorithms, and why the definition of "algorithm" itself often refers back to "the Turing machine". This is discussed in more detail under Stephen Kleene's characterization. The following are summaries of the more famous characterizations (Kleene, Markov, Knuth) together with those that introduce novel elements—elements that further expand the definition or contribute to a more precise definition. [ A mathematical problem and its result can be considered as two points in a space, and the solution consists of a sequence of steps or a path linking them. Quality of the solution is a function of the path. There might be more than one attribute defined for the path, e.g. length, complexity of shape, an ease of generalizing, difficulty, and so on. ] == Chomsky hierarchy == There is more consensus on the "characterization" of the notion of "simple algorithm". All algorithms need to be specified in a formal language, and the "simplicity notion" arises from the simplicity of the language. The Chomsky (1956) hierarchy is a containment hierarchy of classes of formal grammars that generate formal languages. It is used for classifying of programming languages and abstract machines. From the Chomsky hierarchy perspective, if the algorithm can be specified on a simpler language (than unrestricted), it can be characterized by this kind of language, else it is a typical "unrestricted algorithm". Examples: a "general purpose" macro language, like M4 is unrestricted (Turing complete), but the C preprocessor macro language is not, so any algorithm expressed in C preprocessor is a "simple algorithm". See also Relationships between complexity classes. == Features of a good algorithm == The following are desirable features of a well-defined algorithm, as discussed in Scheider and Gersting (1995): Unambiguous Operations: an algorithm must have specific, outlined steps. The steps should be exact enough to precisely specify what to do at each step. Well-Ordered: The exact order of operations performed in an algorithm should be concretely defined. Feasibility: All steps of an algorithm should be possible (also known as effectively computable). Input: an algorithm should be able to accept a well-defined set of inputs. Output: an algorithm should produce some result as an output, so that its correctness can be reasoned about. Finiteness: an algorithm should terminate after a finite number of instructions. Properties of specific algorithms that may be desirable include space and time efficiency, generality (i.e. being able to handle many inputs), or determinism. == 1881 John Venn's negative reaction to W. Stanley Jevons's Logical Machine of 1870 == In early 1870 W. Stanley Jevons presented a "Logical Machine" (Jevons 1880:200) for analyzing a syllogism or other logical form e.g. an argument reduced to a Boolean equation. By means of what Couturat (1914) called a "sort of logical piano [,] ... the equalities which represent the premises ... are "played" on a keyboard like that of a typewriter. ... When all the premises have been "played", the panel shows only those constituents whose sum is equal to 1, that is, ... its logical whole. This mechanical method has the advantage over VENN's geometrical method..." (Couturat 1914:75). For his part John Venn, a logician contemporary to Jevons, was less than thrilled, opining that "it does not seem to me that any contrivances at present known or likely to be discovered really deserve the name of logical machines" (italics added, Venn 1881:120). But of historical use to the developing notion of "algorithm" is his explanation for his negative reaction with respect to a machine that "may subserve a really valuable purpose by enabling us to avoid otherwise inevitable labor": (1) "There is, first, the statement of our data in accurate logical language", (2) "Then secondly, we have to throw these statements into a form fit for the engine to work with – in this case the reduction of each proposition to its elementary denials", (3) "Thirdly, there is the combination or further treatment of our premises after such reduction," (4) "Finally, the results have to be interpreted or read off. This last generally gives rise to much opening for skill and sagacity." He concludes that "I cannot see that any machine can hope to help us except in the third of these steps; so that it seems very doubtful whether any thing of this sort really deserves the name of a logical engine."(Venn 1881:119–121). == 1943, 1952 Stephen Kleene's characterization == This section is longer and more detailed than the others because of its importance to the topic: Kleene was the first to propose that all calculations/computations—of every sort, the totality of—can equivalently be (i) calculated by use of five "primitive recursive operators" plus one special operator called the mu-operator, or be (ii) computed by the actions of a Turing machine or an equivalent model. Furthermore, he opined that either of these would stand as a definition of algorithm. A reader first confronting the words that follow may well be confused, so a brief explanation is in order. Calculation means done by hand, computation means done by Turing machine (or equivalent). (Sometimes an author slips and interchanges the words). A "function" can be thought of as an "input-output box" into which a person puts natural numbers called "arguments" or "parameters" (but only the counting numbers including 0—the nonnegative integers) and gets out a single nonnegative integer (conventionally called "the answer"). Think of the "function-box" as a little man either calculating by hand using "general recursion" or computing by Turing machine (or an equivalent machine). "Effectively calculable/computable" is more generic and means "calculable/computable by some procedure, method, technique ... whatever...". "General recursive" was Kleene's way of writing what today is called just "recursion"; however, "primitive recursion"—calculation by use of the five recursive operators—is a lesser form of recursion that lacks access to the sixth, additional, mu-operator that is needed only in rare instances. Thus most of life goes on requiring only the "primitive recursive functions." === 1943 "Thesis I", 1952 "Church's Thesis" === In 1943 Kleene proposed what has come to be known as Church's thesis: "Thesis I. Every effectively calculable function (effectively decidable predicate) is general recursive" (First stated by Kleene in 1943 (reprinted page 274 in Davis, ed. The Undecidable; appears also verbatim in Kleene (1952) p.300) In a nutshell: to calculate any function the only operations a person needs (technically, formally) are the 6 primitive operators of "general" recursion (nowadays called the operators of the mu recursive functions). Kleene's first statement of this was under the section title "12. Algorithmic theories". He would later amplify it in his text (1952) as follows: "Thesis I and its converse provide the exact definition of the notion of a calculation (decision) procedure or algorithm, for the