In computer science, specifically in algorithms related to pathfinding, a heuristic function is said to be admissible if it never overestimates the cost of reaching the goal, i.e. the cost it estimates to reach the goal is not higher than the lowest possible cost from the current point in the path. In other words, it should act as a lower bound. It is related to the concept of consistent heuristics. While all consistent heuristics are admissible, not all admissible heuristics are consistent. == Search algorithms == An admissible heuristic is used to estimate the cost of reaching the goal state in an informed search algorithm. In order for a heuristic to be admissible to the search problem, the estimated cost must always be lower than or equal to the actual cost of reaching the goal state. The search algorithm uses the admissible heuristic to find an estimated optimal path to the goal state from the current node. For example, in A search the evaluation function (where n {\displaystyle n} is the current node) is: f ( n ) = g ( n ) + h ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)=g(n)+h(n)} where f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} = the evaluation function. g ( n ) {\displaystyle g(n)} = the cost from the start node to the current node h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} = estimated cost from current node to goal. h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is calculated using the heuristic function. With a non-admissible heuristic, the A algorithm could overlook the optimal solution to a search problem due to an overestimation in f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} . == Formulation == n {\displaystyle n} is a node h {\displaystyle h} is a heuristic h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is cost indicated by h {\displaystyle h} to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h^{}(n)} is the optimal cost to reach a goal from n {\displaystyle n} h ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)} is admissible if, ∀ n {\displaystyle \forall n} h ( n ) ≤ h ∗ ( n ) {\displaystyle h(n)\leq h^{}(n)} == Construction == An admissible heuristic can be derived from a relaxed version of the problem, or by information from pattern databases that store exact solutions to subproblems of the problem, or by using inductive learning methods. == Examples == Two different examples of admissible heuristics apply to the fifteen puzzle problem: Hamming distance Manhattan distance The Hamming distance is the total number of misplaced tiles. It is clear that this heuristic is admissible since the total number of moves to order the tiles correctly is at least the number of misplaced tiles (each tile not in place must be moved at least once). The cost (number of moves) to the goal (an ordered puzzle) is at least the Hamming distance of the puzzle. The Manhattan distance of a puzzle is defined as: h ( n ) = ∑ all tiles d i s t a n c e ( tile, correct position ) {\displaystyle h(n)=\sum _{\text{all tiles}}{\mathit {distance}}({\text{tile, correct position}})} Consider the puzzle below in which the player wishes to move each tile such that the numbers are ordered. The Manhattan distance is an admissible heuristic in this case because every tile will have to be moved at least the number of spots in between itself and its correct position. The subscripts show the Manhattan distance for each tile. The total Manhattan distance for the shown puzzle is: h ( n ) = 3 + 1 + 0 + 1 + 2 + 3 + 3 + 4 + 3 + 2 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 1 + 1 = 36 {\displaystyle h(n)=3+1+0+1+2+3+3+4+3+2+4+4+4+1+1=36} == Optimality proof == If an admissible heuristic is used in an algorithm that, per iteration, progresses only the path of lowest evaluation (current cost + heuristic) of several candidate paths, terminates the moment its exploration reaches the goal and, crucially, closes all optimal paths before terminating (something that's possible with A search algorithm if special care isn't taken), then this algorithm can only terminate on an optimal path. To see why, consider the following proof by contradiction: Assume such an algorithm managed to terminate on a path T with a true cost Ttrue greater than the optimal path S with true cost Strue. This means that before terminating, the evaluated cost of T was less than or equal to the evaluated cost of S (or else S would have been picked). Denote these evaluated costs Teval and Seval respectively. The above can be summarized as follows, Strue < Ttrue Teval ≤ Seval If our heuristic is admissible it follows that at this penultimate step Teval = Ttrue because any increase on the true cost by the heuristic on T would be inadmissible and the heuristic cannot be negative. On the other hand, an admissible heuristic would require that Seval ≤ Strue which combined with the above inequalities gives us Teval < Ttrue and more specifically Teval ≠ Ttrue. As Teval and Ttrue cannot be both equal and unequal our assumption must have been false and so it must be impossible to terminate on a more costly than optimal path. As an example, let us say we have costs as follows:(the cost above/below a node is the heuristic, the cost at an edge is the actual cost) 0 10 0 100 0 START ---- O ----- GOAL | | 0| |100 | | O ------- O ------ O 100 1 100 1 100 So clearly we would start off visiting the top middle node, since the expected total cost, i.e. f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} , is 10 + 0 = 10 {\displaystyle 10+0=10} . Then the goal would be a candidate, with f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} equal to 10 + 100 + 0 = 110 {\displaystyle 10+100+0=110} . Then we would clearly pick the bottom nodes one after the other, followed by the updated goal, since they all have f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} lower than the f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} of the current goal, i.e. their f ( n ) {\displaystyle f(n)} is 100 , 101 , 102 , 102 {\displaystyle 100,101,102,102} . So even though the goal was a candidate, we could not pick it because there were still better paths out there. This way, an admissible heuristic can ensure optimality. However, note that although an admissible heuristic can guarantee final optimality, it is not necessarily efficient.
NASA AI Assisted-Air Quality Monitoring Project
The NASA Expert-System Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer (ES-ITMS) Project was a public-private partnership to develop an artificial intelligence assisted, air quality monitoring system and was qualified for use on the Space Shuttle. The partnership was also the first cost and intellectual property shared public-partnership implemented by NASA, which used the commercial Research and Development Limited Partnership (RDLP) model that had been adopted by the Reagan Administration for Department of Defense semiconductor development, and recommended for use by NASA for space commercialization. The project partners included NASA, the University of Florida and Finnigan MAT Corporation, was organized and administered by the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute (subsequently NASA Joint Sponsored Program) and ran from 1988 through 1990. The partnership concluded final testing in 1991, generating four patents, expert system software and application protocol reports. The system was space qualified for use on the Shuttle and elements of the ES-ITMS system were integrated into the product Improvements for Finnigan MAT corporation. The success of the partnership lead NASA to create a pilot program to develop partnership business models as an ongoing management practice. == Purpose and objectives == The need to monitor air quality in confined spaces represented an increasing challenge for NASA's planned space missions and private sector facility managers facing the increased scrutiny of possible air contaminants. Up to the early 1980's, air quality monitors generally required large spaces and human technicians to interpret readings. This created a need for miniaturized air quality monitors that could generate reliable and accurate analytic results without on-site technician presence. NASA initiated projects to develop..."mobile and/or portable mass spectrometers" that evaluated the "tradeoff between instrumentation capabilities and space, weight and power considerations." NASA selected a "commercial ITMS instrument capable of generating electron ionization, chemical ionization and mass spectrometry data", to develop a linked expert system to accomplish analysis without human intervention. The commercial instrumentation was from Finnigan MAT corporation while the scientific expertise to support expert system development was available at the University of Florida. The project managers at NASA Ames created a single, integrated project using the RDLP model with objectives to: Develop AI/expert system software for instrument control (NASA's role) Expand sensitivity, selectivity and speed of the spectrometer (Univ Florida role) Expand the spectrometer analytic capability and automate the screening (Finnigan role) == Membership == The partnership included seven specialists from five member organizations: Federal Government National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) NASA Ames Research Center (ARC) NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Commercial Finnigan MAT Corporation (Thermo-Fisher Scientific) TGS Technology, Inc. Research Management University of Florida == Organization, management and administration == The technical project was organized into two development teams, one located in at the NASA Ames Research Center covering expert systems and analytic capabilities and one in Florida covering improved sensitivity and testing. The partnership management and administration was provided by a non-profit, partnership support organization: the Joint Enterprise Institute operating through San Francisco State University Foundation (SFSUF) with a NASA employee liaison, Syed Shariq. == Public-private partnership == The partnership structure was as a prototype test of a pilot NASA program to develop public-private partnership business models. The pilot program was known as the NASA Joint Sponsored Research Program (JSRP), which operated as the NASA Joint Enterprise Institute between 1988 and 1991. The partnership was the first public-private, research and development partnership implemented by NASA in response to national policy shifts to increase technology transfer and space commercialization. The partnership structure included a two year technology development and testing plan that cost $610,000, of which NASA funded $310,000, Finnigan $175,000 and the University of Florida $95,000. == Results and commercialization == The project generated patents (4), software (2) and application protocol reports (8). NASA gained use of the patents and jointly development software while Finnigan received commercial utilization rights. The results were commercialized within eighteen months of project completion. == Recognition == NASA recognized the project as a space qualified instrument. Its achievements were reported to the NASA Administrator, directly leading to establishment of the agency-wide Joint Sponsored Research Program.
Death and the Internet
A recent extension to the cultural relationship with death is the increasing number of people who die having created a large amount of digital content, such as social media profiles, that will remain after death. This may result in concern and confusion, because of automated features of dormant accounts (e.g. birthday reminders), uncertainty of the deceased's preferences that profiles be deleted or left as a memorial, and whether information that may violate the deceased's privacy (such as email or browser history) should be made accessible to family. Issues with how this information is sensitively dealt with are further complicated as it may belong to the service provider (not the deceased) and many do not have clear policies on what happens to the accounts of deceased users. While some sites, including Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), have policies related to death, others remain dormant until if applicable, deleted due to inactivity or transferred to family or friends. The FADA (Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act) was set in place to make it possible to transfer digital possessions legally. More broadly, the heavy increase in social media use is affecting cultural practices surrounding death. "Virtual funerals" and other forms of previously physical memorabilia are being introduced into the digital world, complete with public details of a person's life and death. == E-mail == Gmail and Hotmail allow the email accounts of the deceased to be accessed provided certain requirements are met. Yahoo! Mail will not provide access, citing the No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability clause in the Yahoo! terms of service. In 2005, Yahoo! was ordered by the Probate Court of Oakland County, Michigan, to release emails of deceased US Marine Justin Ellsworth to his father, John Ellsworth. == By website == === Facebook === ==== Policies ==== In its early days, Facebook used to delete profiles of dead people, but does not anymore. In October 2009, the company introduced "memorial pages" in response to multiple user requests related to the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting. After receiving a proof of death via a special form, the profile would be converted into a tribute page with minimal personal details, where friends and family members could share their grief. In February 2015, Facebook allowed users to appoint a friend or family member as a "legacy contact" with the rights to manage their page after death. It also gave Facebook users an option to have their account permanently deleted when they die. As of January 2019, all 3 options were active. ==== Controversies ==== In 2013, BuzzFeed criticized Facebook for the lack of control over memorialization that resulted in a "Facebook death" prank aimed at locking users out of their own accounts. In 2017, Reuters reported that a German court rejected a mother's demand to access her deceased daughter's memorialized account stating that the right to private telecommunications outweighed the right to inheritance. In July 2018, Dubai's DIFC Courts ruling clarified that Facebook, Twitter and other social media accounts should be bequeathed in legally binding will. Social media networks have also been criticized for not responding to relatives' requests to alter information on memorialized accounts. Another criticism is that Facebook users often are unaware that their content is ultimately owned not by them, but by Facebook. === Dropbox === ==== Policies ==== Dropbox determines inactive accounts by looking at sign-ins, file shares, and file activity over the previous 12 months. Once an account is determined inactive, Dropbox deletes the files on the account. To request access to the account of a deceased person, heirs are required to send appropriate documents by physical mail. === Google === ==== Policies ==== In April 2013, Google announced the creation of the 'Inactive Account Manager', which allows users of Google services to set up a process in which ownership and control of inactive accounts is transferred to a delegated user. Google also allows users to submit a range of requests regarding accounts belonging to deceased users. Google works with immediate family members and representatives to close online accounts in some cases once a user is known to be deceased, and in certain circumstances may also provide content from a deceased user's account. === X (formerly Twitter) === ==== Policies ==== Until 2010, Twitter (launched in July 2006) did not have a policy on handling deceased user accounts, and simply deleted timelines of deceased users. In August 2010, Twitter allowed memorialization of accounts upon request from family members, and also provided them with an option of either deleting the account or obtaining a permanent backup of the deceased user's public tweets. In 2014, Twitter updated its policy to include an option to delete deceased user photographs. This policy was implemented after multiple Twitter trolls sent Zelda Williams, daughter of Robin Williams, photoshopped images of her father. As of January 2019, the only option that Twitter offered for the accounts of dead people was account deactivation. Previously published content is not removed. To deactivate an account Twitter requires an immediate family member to present a copy of their ID and a death certificate of the deceased. Twitter specified that it does not provide account access to anyone, but does allow people having account login information to continue posting. A prominent example is Roger Ebert's account maintained by his wife Chaz. ==== Controversies ==== In 2012, The Next Web columnist Martin Bryant noticed that since Twitter, unlike Facebook, did not have a "one account per real person" emphasis, memorializing accounts presented a difficulty to the service. He also criticized the service for the lack of control over hacking of such accounts and disapproved the practice of passing dead people's usernames to new owners after a certain period of inactivity. In 2013, Variety ran a feature about Cory Monteith's Twitter account that had 1.5 million followers at the moment on his death and gained almost 1 million new followers afterwards. Monteith's fans also launched #DontDeleteCorysTwitter campaign. As of February 2019, the celebrity's account had 1.63 million followers. Various media reported awkward incidents related to automatic posting and account hacking. === iTunes === ==== Policies ==== iCloud and iTunes accounts are "non transferable" since the content is not owned — users only have a licence to access it. === Wikipedia === Users who have made at least several hundred edits or are otherwise known for substantial contributions to Wikipedia can be noted at a central memorial page. Wikipedia user pages are ordinarily fully edit-protected after the user has died, to prevent vandalism. === YouTube === YouTube grants access to accounts of deceased persons under certain conditions. It is one of the data options that one can select to give access to a trusted contact with Google's Inactive Account Manager. === Instagram === ==== Policies ==== As of the COVID-19 pandemic, Instagram has notified its users of a delay in time of reviewing reports of deceased users due to the limited staff the pandemic has caused. Users that submit a report on a deceased user on Instagram can either memorialize the account or remove it from Instagram's platform. Through memorializing the account, Instagram secures and protects a platform of a deceased user, but per their policy, they do not supply any of the login credentials to the account. For both memorializing or removing a deceased users account, a verified user needs to submit a tangible document that shows proof of death of the user. However, to fully remove an account, the user must be a close or direct family member to the deceased person, and show proof of credibility as well. === Microsoft === ==== Policies ==== Per Microsoft's policies, they do not supply any of the login credentials to a deceased user's Microsoft account. A user does not have to contact or notify Microsoft of the deceased user, as the related user is able to close the account themselves. At default, Microsoft removes accounts after 2 years of inactivity. If the user does not have access to the deceased user's account, Microsoft recommends that the user deletes all bank accounts linked to that of the deceased to ensure no subscriptions are still going through. If the user wants to request to gain access to the deceased user's account, a court order or a subpoena has to be provided to Microsoft, but does not guarantee access to the deceased user's account. For users that live in Germany, more documentation is needed to gain access of a deceased user's account, including the deceased user's death certificate, a form of ID, and a documentation of consent from the deceased. The requesting user needs to provide a form of ID as well. == Digital inheritance == Digital inheritance is the process of handing over
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 Telecommunications and information exchange between systems is a standardization subcommittee of the Joint Technical Committee ISO/IEC JTC 1. It is part of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which develops and facilitates standards within the field of telecommunications and information exchange between systems. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 was established in 1964, following the creation of a Special Working Group under ISO/TC 97 on Data Link Control Procedures and Modem Interfaces. The international secretariat of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 is the Korean Agency for Technology and Standards (KATS), located in South Korea. == Scope == The scope of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 is “Standardization in the field of telecommunications dealing with the exchange of information between open systems including system functions, procedures, parameters as well as the conditions for their use. The standardization encompasses protocols and services of lower layers, including physical, data link, network, and transport as well as those of upper layers including but not limited to Directory and ASN.1.” Future Network has recently been added as an important work scope. A considerable part of the work is done in effective cooperation with ITU-T and other standardization bodies including IEEE 802 and Ecma International. == Structure == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 has three active working groups (WGs), each of which carries out specific tasks in standards development within the field of telecommunications and information exchange between systems. The focus of each working group is described in the group’s terms of reference. Working groups can be established if new working areas arise, or disbanded if the group’s working area is no longer relevant to standardization needs. Active working groups of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 are: == Collaborations == ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 works in close collaboration with a number of other organizations or subcommittees, both internal and external to ISO or IEC. Organizations internal to ISO or IEC that collaborate with or are in liaison with ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 include: ISO/IEC JTC 1/WG 7, Sensor networks ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 17, Cards and personal identification ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 25, Interconnection of information technology equipment ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27, IT security techniques ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29, Coding of audio, picture, multimedia and hypermedia information ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 31, Automatic identification and data capture techniques ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 38, Distributed application platforms & services (DAPS) ISO/TC 68, Financial services ISO/TC 122, Packaging ISO/TC 184/SC 5, Interoperability, integration, and architectures for enterprise systems and automation applications ISO/TC 215, Health Informatics IEC/SC 46A, Coaxial cables IEC/SC 46C, Wires and symmetric cables IEC/TC 48, Electrical connectors and mechanical structures for electrical and electronic equipment IEC/SC 48B, Electrical connectors IEC/TC 65, Industrial-process measurement, control and automation IEC/SC 65C, Industrial networks IEC/TC 86, Fibre optics IEC/SC 86C, Fibre optic systems and active devices IEC/TC 93, Design automation Some organizations external to ISO or IEC that collaborate with or are in liaison to ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 include: European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) European Commission (EC) European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Ecma International International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) IEEE 802 LMSC (LAN/MAN Standards Committee) Internet Society (ISOC) International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO) ITU-T Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) NFC Forum MFA Forum United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Universal Postal Union (UPU) World Meteorological Organization (WMO) CEN/TC 247/WG 4 == Member countries == Countries pay a fee to ISO to be members of subcommittees. The 19 "P" (participating) members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 are: Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Spain, Switzerland, Tunisia, United Kingdom, and United States. The 31 "O" (observing) members of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 are: Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, France, Ghana, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Thailand, Turkey, and Ukraine. == Published standards == There are 365 published standards under the direct responsibility of ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6. Published standards by ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 6 include:
Amplified conference
An amplified conference is a conference or similar event in which the talks and discussions at the conference are 'amplified' through use of networked technologies in order to extend the reach of the conference deliberations. The term was originally coined by Lorcan Dempsey in a blog post. The term is now widely used within the academic and research community with Wankel proposing the following definition: The extension of a physical event (or a series of events) through the use of social media tools for expanding access to (aspects of) the event beyond physical and temporal bounds. Such amplification takes place in the context of intent to make the most of the intellectual content, discussion, networking, and discovery initiated by the event through the process of sharing with co-attendees, colleagues, friends and wider informed publics. A paper by Haider and others illustrates how amplified conferences are becoming mainstream in a discussion on "how social media have been employed as part of the project, particularly around event amplification". As described by Guy in the Ariadne ejournal the term is not a prescriptive one, but rather describes a pattern of behaviors which initially took place at IT and Web-oriented conferences once WiFi networks started to become available at conference venues and delegates started to bring with them networked devices such as laptops and, more recently, PDAs and mobile phones. == Different Approaches to 'Amplification' of Conferences == There are a number of ways in which conferences can be amplified through use of networked technologies: Amplification of the audiences' voice: Prior to the availability of real time chat technologies at events (whether use of IRC, Twitter, instant messaging clients, etc.) it was only feasible to discuss talks with immediate neighbours, and even then this may be considered rude. Amplification of the speaker's talk: The availability of video and audio-conferencing technologies make it possible for a speaker to be heard by an audience which isn't physically present at the conference. Although use of video technologies has been available to support conferences for some time, this has normally been expensive and require use of dedicated video-conferencing technologies. However the availability of lightweight desktop tools make it much easier to deploy such technologies, without even, requiring the involvement of conference organisers. Amplification across time: Video and audio technologies can also be used to allow a speaker's talk to be made available after the event, with use of podcasting or videocasting technologies allowing the talks to be easily syndicated to mobile devices as well as accessed on desktop computers. Amplification of the speaker's slides: The popularity of global repository services for slides, such as SlideShare, enable the slides used by a speaker to be more easily found, embedded on other Web sites and commented upon, in ways that were not possible when the slides, if made available at all, were only available on a conference Web site. Amplification of feedback to the speaker: Micro-blogging technologies, such as Twitter, are being used not only as a discussion channel for conference participants but also as a way of providing real-time feedback to a speaker during a talk. We are also now seeing dedicated microblogging technologies, such as Coveritlive and Scribblelive, being developed which aim to provide more sophisticated 'back channels' for use at conferences. Amplification of a conference's collective memory: The popularity of digital cameras and the photographic capabilities of many mobile phones is leading to many photographs being taken at conferences. With such photographs often being uploaded to popular photographic sharing services, such as Flickr, and such collections being made more easy to discover through agreed use of tags, we are seeing amplification of the memories of an event though the sharing of such resources. The ability of such photographic resources to be 'mashed up' with, say, accompanying music, can similarly help to enrich such collective experiences. Amplification of the learning: The ability to be able to follow links to resources and discuss the points made by a speaker during a talk can enrich the learning which takes place at an event, as described by Shabajee's article on "'Hot' or Not? Welcome to real-time peer review" published in the Times Higher Education Supplement in May 2003. Long term amplification of conference outputs: The availability in a digital format of conference resources, including 'official' resources such as slides, video and audio recordings, etc. which have been made by the conference organisers with the approval of speakers, together with more nebulous resources such as archives of conference back channels, and photographs and unofficial recordings taken at the event may help to provide a more authentic record of an event, which could potentially provide a valuable historical record. The amplification of conferences can be viewed as an example of how new technologies are altering standard practice. By using these techniques a different type of interaction is created at the conference itself, but also the boundaries around the conference can be seen as permeable, with remote participants engaging in discussion. An amplified conference also provides a considerably altered archive compared with a 'traditional' one. For the latter, the printed proceedings will be the main record, but for an amplified event this record is distributed across many media and takes in a wider range of content types, including the papers, videos of the presentations (for example on YouTube), the slides (e.g. on Slideshare), photos of the event (Flickr), interaction between participants (Twitter), reflections and comments (blogs), etc. The amplified conference represents an example of changing practice in digital scholarship.
DABUS
DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) is an artificial intelligence (AI) system created by Stephen Thaler. It reportedly conceived of two novel products — a food container constructed using fractal geometry, which enables rapid reheating, and a flashing beacon for attracting attention in an emergency. The filing of patent applications designating DABUS as inventor has led to decisions by patent offices and courts on whether a patent can be granted for an invention reportedly made by an AI system. == History in different jurisdictions == === Australia === On 17 September 2019, Thaler filed an application to patent a "Food container and devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention," naming DABUS as the inventor. On 21 September 2020, IP Australia found that section 15(1) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) is inconsistent with an artificial intelligence machine being treated as an inventor, and Thaler's application had lapsed. Thaler sought judicial review, and on 30 July 2021, the Federal Court set aside IP Australia's decision and ordered IP Australia to reconsider the application. On 13 April 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside that decision, holding that only a natural person can be an inventor for the purposes of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and the Patents Regulations 1991 (Cth), and that such an inventor must be identified for any person to be entitled to a grant of a patent. On 11 November 2022, Thaler was refused special leave to appeal to the High Court. === European Patent Office === On 17 October 2018 and 7 November 2018, Thaler filed two European patent applications with the European Patent Office. The first claimed invention was a "Food Container" and the second was "Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention." On 27 January 2020, the EPO rejected the applications on the grounds that the application listed an AI system named DABUS, and not a human, as the inventor, based on Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention (EPC). On 21 December 2021, the Board of Appeal of the EPO dismissed Thaler's appeal from the EPO's primary decision. The Board of Appeal confirmed that "under the EPC the designated inventor has to be a person with legal capacity. This is not merely an assumption on which the EPC was drafted. It is the ordinary meaning of the term inventor." === United Kingdom === Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal. Thaler appealed against the hearing officer's decision to the Patents Court (a specialist court within the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales that determines patent disputes). On 21 September 2020, Mr Justice Marcus Smith upheld the decision of the hearing officer. On 21 September 2021, Thaler's further appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed by Arnold LJ and Laing LJ (Birss LJ dissenting). On 20 December 2023, the UK Supreme Court dismissed a further appeal by Thaler. In its judgment, the court held that an "inventor" under the Patents Act 1977 must be a natural person. === United States === The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application. Thaler first fought this result by filing a complaint under the Administrative Procedure Act alleging that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law; unsupported by substantial evidence, and in excess of Defendants’ statutory authority." A month later on August 19, 2019, Thaler filed a petition with the USPTO as allowed in 37 C.F.R. § 1.181 stating that DABUS should be the inventor. The judge and Thaler agreed in this case that Thaler himself is unable to receive the patent on behalf of DABUS. In their August 5, 2022, Thaler decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that only a natural person could be an inventor, which means that the AI that invents any other type of invention is not addressed by the "who" mentioned in the legislation. === New Zealand === On January 31, 2022, the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) decided that a patent application (776029) filed by Stephen Thaler was void, on the basis that no inventor was identified on the patent application. IPONZ determined that DABUS could not be "an actual devisor of the invention" as required by the Patents Act 2013, and that this must be a natural person as held by the previous patent offices above. The High Court of New Zealand confirmed the decision in 2023. === South Africa === On 24 June 2021, the South African Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) accepted Dr Thaler's Patent Cooperation Treaty, for a patent in respect of inventions generated by DABUS. In July 2021, the CIPC released a notice of issuance for the patent. It is the first patent granted for an AI invention. === Switzerland === On June 26, 2025, the Swiss Federal Administrative Court ruled that artificial intelligence systems such as DABUS cannot be listed as inventors in patent applications. The court upheld the existing practice of the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property (IPI), which requires that only natural persons can be recognized as inventors under Swiss patent law. The case concerned a patent application, which sought to designate DABUS as the sole inventor of a food container designed with a fractal geometry to enhance heat distribution. The IPI had rejected the application, arguing that both the absence of a human inventor and the attribution of inventorship to an AI system were inadmissible. While the court dismissed Thaler's main request, it accepted a subsidiary request: if a human applicant recognizes and files a patent based on an AI-generated invention, that person may be considered the inventor. As a result, the application may proceed with Thaler listed as the inventor. The decision (B-2532/2024) can still be appealed to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.
Filter (social media)
Filters are digital image effects often used on social media. They initially simulated the effects of camera filters, and they have since developed with facial recognition technology and computer-generated augmented reality. Social media filters—especially beauty filters—are often used to alter the appearance of selfies taken on smartphones or other similar devices. While filters are commonly associated with beauty enhancement and feature alterations, there is a wide range of filters that have different functions. From adjusting photo tones to using face animations and interactive elements, users have access to a range of tools. These filters allow users to enhance photos and allow room for creative expression and fun interactions with digital content. == History == Beauty filters originate from Purikura ("print club"), a type of Japanese photographic arcade game machine conceived in 1994 by Sasaki Miho, a female employee at Atlus, and released in 1995 by Atlus and Sega primarily for female visitors at Japanese arcades. They allowed the manipulation of digital selfie photos with kawaii beauty filters similar to later Snapchat filters. Purikura filters included beautifying the image, cat whiskers, bunny ears, writing text, scribbling graffiti, selecting backdrops, borders, insertable decorations, icons, hair extensions, twinkling diamond tiaras, tenderized light effects, and predesigned decorative margins. To capitalize on the Purikura phenomenon in Japan during the late 1990s, Japanese mobile phones began including a front-facing camera, starting with the Kyocera Visual Phone VP‑210 in 1999. The Sanyo SCP-5300 released in 2002 was the first camera phone with filter effects, such as illumination, white‑balance control, sepia, black and white, and negative colors. Purikura-like beauty filters later appeared in smartphone apps such as Instagram and Snapchat in the 2010s. In 2010, Apple introduced the iPhone 4—the first iPhone model with a front-facing camera. It gave rise to a dramatic increase in selfies, which could be touched up with more flattering lighting effects with applications such as Instagram. The American photographer Cole Rise was involved in the creation of the original filters for Instagram around 2010, designing several of them himself, including Sierra, Mayfair, Sutro, Amaro, and Willow. However, the technology for virtual lens filters was invented and patented by Patrick Levy-Rosenthal in 2007. The patent received 100 citations, including Facebook, Nvidia, Microsoft, Samsung, and Snap. In September, 2011, the Instagram 2.0 update for the application introduced "live filters," which allowed the user to preview the effect of the filter while shooting with the application's camera. #NoFilter, a hashtag label to describe an image that had not been filtered, became popular around 2013. An update in 2014 allowed users to adjust the intensity of the filters as well as fine-tune other aspects of the image, features that had been available for years on applications such as VSCO and Litely. In 2014, Snapchat started releasing sponsored filters to monetize the participatory use of the application. In September 2015, Snapchat acquired Looksery and released a feature called "lenses," animated filters using facial recognition technology. Some of the early lenses available on Snapchat at the time were Heart Eyes, Terminator, Puke Rainbows, Old, Scary, Rage Face, Heart Avalanche. The Coachella filter released April 2016 was a popular early augmented reality filter. In April 2017, Facebook released the Camera Effects Platform, which is the first augmented reality platform that allows developers to create their own filters and effects on Facebook's Camera. In December 2017, Snapchat also launched their Lens Studio augmented reality developer tool that allows users and advertisers to do the same on the Snapchat application. In April 2022,TikTok joined the two, and launched their own augmented reality developer platform called Effect house. In February 2023, Effect House gave opened up the access to generative AI tools that allowed creators to change facial features in real time. In November 2023, TikTok released a feature where users no longer needed Effect House to create their own filters, as they are now able to create their own effects on the TikTok application. In August 2024, Meta announced that it would be removing third-party filter effects from its family of apps by January 14, 2025. The AR development software Meta Spark AR will also be retired at the same time; it was at one point the "world's largest mobile AR platform". Brand and creator effects represent the vast majority of filters available on Meta platforms, with over 2 million third-party filters available as of 2021. == Beauty filter == A beauty filter is a filter applied to still photographs, or to video in real time, to enhance the physical attractiveness of the subject. Typical effects of such filters include smoothing skin texture and modifying the proportions of facial features, for example enlarging the eyes or narrowing the nose. Filters may be included as a built-in feature of social media apps such as Instagram or Snapchat, or implemented through standalone applications such as Facetune. In 2020, the "Perfect Skin" filter for Snapchat and Instagram which was created by Brazilian augmented reality developer Brenno Faustino gained more than 36 million impressions in the first 24 hours of its release. In 2021, TikTok users pointed out how the default front-facing camera on the platform automatically applied the retouch and other feature-altering filters. Users noted that these filters slimmed down faces, smoothed skin, whitened teeth, and altered facial features such as nose and eye size, without the option to disable this feature through settings. In March 2023, the "Bold Glamour" filter was released on TikTok and instantly went viral with over 18 million videos created within its first week. This filter subtly enhances the user's facial features seamlessly, giving the illusion of fuller eyebrows, taller cheekbones, enhanced eye make up, a smaller nose, plumper lips, and clearer skin, giving off a natural yet distinct effect. As of May 2024, the filter has been used in over 220 million videos and has become a pivotal moment for beauty filters on digital platforms. Critics have raised concerns that the widespread use of such filters on social media may lead to negative body image, particularly among girls. Though Meta's intention of removing third-party filters will likely see all beauty filters removed, academics feel that the damage of beautifying filters is already done. === Background === The manipulation of photos to enhance attractiveness has long been possible using software such as Adobe Photoshop and, before that, analogue techniques such as airbrushing. However, such tools required considerable technical and artistic skill, and so their use was mostly limited to professional contexts, such as magazines or advertisements. By contrast, filters work in an automated fashion through the use of complex algorithms, requiring little or no input from the user. This ease of use, in combination with the increase in processing power of smartphones, and the rise of social media and selfie culture, have led to photographic manipulation occurring on a much wider scale than ever before. One of the earliest examples of a content-aware digital photographic filter is red-eye reduction. === Effects === Typical changes applied by beauty filters include: Smoothing skin texture; minimizing fine lines and blemishes Erasing under-eye bags Erasing naso-labial lines ("laugh lines") Application of virtual makeup, such as lipstick or eyeshadow Slimming the face; erasing double chins Enlarging the eyes Whitening teeth Narrowing the nose Increasing fullness of the lips Beauty filters most frequently target the face, though in some cases they may affect other body parts. For example, the app "Retouch Me" was reported to have a feature which allows users to superimpose visible abdominal muscles (a "six pack") onto photos featuring the subject's bare stomach. === Reception and psychological effects === Some commentators have expressed concern that beauty filters may create unrealistic beauty standards, particularly among girls, and contribute to rates of body dysmorphic disorder. A correlation has been established between negative body image and the use of beautifying filters, though the direction of causation is unknown. The inability to discern whether a particular image has been filtered is thought to exacerbate their negative psychological effects. Policymakers have advocated for social networks to disclose the use of filters; TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat all label filtered photos and videos with the name of the filter applied. It has also been noted that beauty filters on social media tend to highlight Eurocentric features, like lighter eyes, a smaller nose, and flushed ch