Kialo

Kialo is an online structured debate platform with argument maps in the form of debate trees. It is a collaborative reasoning tool for thoughtful discussion, understanding different points of view, and collaborative decision-making, showing arguments for and against claims underneath user-submitted theses or questions. The deliberative discourse platform is designed to present hundreds of supporting or opposing arguments in a dynamic argument tree and is streamlined for rational civil debate on topics such as philosophical questions, policy deliberations, entertainment, ethics, science questions, and unsolved problems or subjects of disagreement in general. Argument-boxes are structured into hierarchical branches where the root is the main thesis (or theses) of the debate, enabling deliberation and navigable debates between opposing perspectives. A debate is divided into Pro (supporting) and Con (refuting or devaluing) columns where registered users can add arguments and rate the impact on the weight or validity of the parent claim. The arguments are sorted according to the rating average. Its argument tree structure enables detailed scrutiny of claims at all levels of the tree and allows users to for example quickly understand why a decision was made or which of the aggregated arguments swayed it this way. Newcomers can join a debate at any time and look back at the structured discussion history, and then weigh in at the right place with their new argument or their comment on a specific argument. The design presets a structure on debates "that allows participants to easily see, process, and ultimately assess the many facets of competing claims". The word Kialo is Esperanto for "reason". The platform is the world's largest argument mapping and structured debate site. == Overview == Users can comment on every Pro or Con, for example for requesting sources or expansions. Recent activities of a debate are shown in a panel on the right side of the respective debate. Debates can be found through the search or on the Explore page through their descriptions and topic-tags. Mere comments that do not make a constructive point (a self-contained argument backed by reasoning) are not allowed and are picked up by other users and moderators. "Civil language and sensible observations from opposing perspectives" can be seen also in debates about controversial topics. The site by-design incentivizes fair, rigorous, open-minded dialogue. Contributors making claims often also write counterpoints to their own contribution. Claims need to be shorter than 500 characters and can link to external sources. Debate trees can also start off with multiple theses – such as different policy options or hypotheses. Claims can link to related debates or include segments of them. In the discussion tab of each claim, users can make edit proposals (e.g. for accuracy, improving sources, or changing scope), decide if the argument should be moved or copied to another branch, call for archiving a claim, and ask for extra evidence or clarification. Debates can grow large and complex for which a sunburst diagram visualization of the topology of the debate and the search functionality can be useful. Each debate also has a chat-box. In cases where e.g. a "Con" is a point against multiple in the "Pros", users – through moderators – can link these arguments at the respective places to avoid duplication of content and allowing a clean chain for people to understand which points are arguments against each other. Contributions of users are tracked, enabling a board of thought-leaders for every debate. Other gamification elements include a feature to thank users for their contributions. The "Perspectives" feature allows users to see 'Impact' ratings of supporters and opposers of a thesis as well as of the debate's moderators and individual contributors. It thereby enables participants to see a debate from other participants' perspectives and to sort by them. In Kialo Edu, this feature lets teachers view votes for a whole class, individuals, or supporters/opponents of a specific thesis. Users in both versions of Kialo can vote on the overall debate topic as well as on individual claims to express their perspectives or conclusions, with the rationale (i.e. the main causal arguments) why they voted on the veracity of the thesis as they did not being captured. Voting can be done by any registered user while navigating through any debate that has voting enabled or via using the Guided Voting wizard user interface that automatically walks through branches. As of 2021, Kialo doesn't have a mobile app. == Contents == A 2018 report stated the collaborative argument platform hosts more than 10,000 debates in various languages. It also hosts private debates. The website claims that it has over 18,000 public debates as of July 2023, as well as over 1 million votes and over 720,000 claims. Debates can be found via the site's internal search and up to six tags per debate. Preprint studies have scraped public debates on over 1.4K issues with over 130K statements as of October 2019 and 1628 debates, related to over 1120 categories, with 124,312 unique claims as of June 26, 2020. == Kialo Inc. == The site is run by Kialo Inc. It was founded by German-born entrepreneur and London School of Economics and Political Science graduate Errikos Pitsos in August 2017 and is based in Brooklyn and Berlin. According to a 2018 report, the site does not show advertisements and does not sell user's data. The for-profit company was founded in 2011, Pitsos began to develop the concept in 2012 and described various specifics of the system in 2014. In 2018, he stated that they intend to make money by selling the platform to companies as a deliberation and decision-making tool. The site is free to use for the public and in education. According to the site, as of 2023 Kialo.com is a non-revenue generating site with no ads and no reselling of user data. == Applications and adoption == === Adopted applications === Applications of its content or the platform in society include: Teachers and professors, especially in high schools – including the universities Harvard and Princeton, are using Kialo for class discussions and exercises in critical thinking and reasoning, as consolidating understanding of materials covered in recent classes, more useful and engaging learning experiences, for remote/e-learning, for clearing up misconceptions, teaching logical fallacies and rational argumentation, for academic dialogue, teaching media literacy, and for teaching to sufficiently reflect or research before posting online. Like for debaters of the main site, access for schools and universities is free. Kialo Edu is the custom version of Kialo specifically designed for classroom use where debates are private and locked to invited students. Kialo allows teachers to provide feedback to students on their ideas, argument structure, and research quality while it is left to other students to rate the impacts of their peers' arguments. Students can be allowed to contribute anonymously which may be useful for controversial issues as well as for safeguarding privacy in education. Students are or can be encouraged to back up their claims with evidence which can foster digital literacy and research skills. Students and teachers can use it to arrange their thoughts when structuring an essay or project. The site's name was decided on internally using the software. === Prototypical and theoretical applications === Potential, theoretical, prototypical or little-used applications include: Education Improving critical thinking skills of society at large as well as facilitating deep or efficient thinking and deepening research and debates where e.g. discussions are less shallow and the well-known or many arguments have already been made and in many cases aren't unreasonably over- or underrated. Pitsos claimed that "we're training students to be very good test-takers instead of critical thinkers", suggesting teaching people to think things through may be more important or neglected compared to essay writing skills. Many young people and adults are "submerged into a sea of dispersed information", "[b]rowsing and engaging in superficial thinking activities". Kialo could counteract this issue and help people develop good sane reasoning. Academia, R&D and policy Three scholars from three prestigious U.S. universities outlined possible benefits in this domain, including applications beyond higher education such as for academic communication. They suggest the debate platform could be used for structuring the communication of open peer-review by helping those giving feedback to "hone in on[sic] core arguments and pieces of evidence in an even more direct way" than annotated commenting. It could be used to evaluate extracted argument structures and sequences from raw texts, as in a Semantic Web for arguments. Such "argument mining", to which Kialo is the lar

Cooperative storage cloud

A cooperative storage cloud is a decentralized model of networked online storage where data is stored on multiple computers (nodes), hosted by the participants cooperating in the cloud. For the cooperative scheme to be viable, the total storage contributed in aggregate must be at least equal to the amount of storage needed by end users. However, some nodes may contribute less storage and some may contribute more. There may be reward models to compensate the nodes contributing more. Unlike a traditional storage cloud, a cooperative does not directly employ dedicated servers for the actual storage of the data, thereby eliminating the need for a significant dedicated hardware investment. Each node in the cooperative runs specialized software which communicates with a centralized control and orchestration server, thereby allowing the node to both consume and contribute storage space to the cloud. The centralized control and orchestration server requires several orders of magnitude less resources (storage, computing power, and bandwidth) to operate, relative to the overall capacity of the cooperative. == Data security == Files hosted in the cloud are fragmented and encrypted before leaving the local machine. They are then distributed randomly using a load balancing and geo-distribution algorithm to other nodes in the cooperative. Users can add an additional layer of security and reduce storage space by compressing and encrypting files before they are copied to the cloud. == Data redundancy == In order to maintain data integrity and high availability across a relatively unreliable set of computers over a wide area network like the Internet, the source node will add some level of redundancy to each data block. This allows the system to recreate the entire block even if some nodes are temporarily unavailable (due to loss of network connectivity, the machine being powered off or a hardware failure). The most storage and bandwidth efficient forms of redundancy use erasure coding techniques like Reed–Solomon. A simple, less CPU intensive but more expensive form of redundancy is duplicate copies. == Flexible contribution == Due to bandwidth or hardware constraints some nodes may not be able to contribute as much space as they consume in the cloud. On the other hand, nodes with large storage space and limited or no bandwidth constraints may contribute more than they consume, thereby the cooperative can stay in balance.

Quantexa

Quantexa is a UK-based software company that develops artificial intelligence-based applications for data analytics and decision-making. The company was founded in 2016 and is headquartered in London, with operations in North America, Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. As of 2025, Quantexa reported a valuation of $2.6 billion and provides services to organizations in over 70 countries. Investors include Warburg Pincus, HSBC, and the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan. == History == Quantexa was founded in London in 2016 by several co-founders, including Jamie Hutton, Richard Seewald, Imam Hoque, Felix Hoddinott, and Vishal Marria, who also serves as the company's chief executive officer. The company was established to develop tools intended to address limitations in traditional data analysis methods, particularly those related to identifying hidden connections across large datasets. The name "Quantexa" is derived from the company's focus on quantitative methods and data analysis. In 2023, Quantexa acquired Dublin-based AI firm Aylien. In April 2023, the company completed a Series E funding round, raising $129 million at a valuation of approximately $1.8 billion, marking its entry into "unicorn" status. In October 2024, the company reported annual recurring revenue (ARR) exceeding $100 million. In early 2025, Quantexa participated in the World Economic Forum's Unicorn Program, which supports high-growth technology companies. In March 2025, Quantexa completed a Series F funding round of $175 million, led by Teachers' Venture Growth, the venture arm of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. That August, the company was reported to be considering a 2026 IPO. The company formed a partnership with Zurich in October 2025, the first insurer to add its AI-based Decision Intelligence platform to enhance fraud detection.

Amália (LLM)

Amália is a Portuguese large language model (LLM) announced in November 2024 by the Portuguese Prime-Minister Luís Montenegro. Its final version is expected to be launched in 2026. It is being developed by Center for Responsible AI (Centro para a AI Responsável) and by the research centers of NOVA School of Science and Technology and Instituto Superior Técnico. == History == In 2024 it was announced that the Portuguese Agency for Administrative Modernization (Agência para a Modernização Administrativa) transpose this LLM to Portuguese Public Administration. According to Paulo Dimas (CEO of the Center for Responsible AI) the three fundamental points of this LLM project are the linguistic variant (European Portuguese), cultural representation and data protection. In April 2025 it was announced that Amália had entered beta phase with an improved version being expected to be launched in September 2025. The beta version released in September is available only to the Public Administration, but the website launched in October reiterates the final version will be an open model.

Live Transcribe

Live Transcribe is a mobile app for real-time captioning, developed by Google for the Android operating system. Development on the application began in partnership with Gallaudet University. It was publicly released as a free beta for Android 5.0+ on the Google Play Store on February 4, 2019. As of early 2023 it had been downloaded over 500 million times. == Development == Researchers Dimitri Kanevsky, Sagar Savla and Chet Gnegy at Google developed the app in collaboration with researchers at Gallaudet University, an American university for the education of the deaf and hard of hearing. The app uses machine learning to generate captions, similar to YouTube's auto-generated captions. In August 2019, Google made Live Transcribe an open-source project. == Features == The app uses speech recognition to generate live captions in over 80 languages with varying accuracy. The app, which requires connection to the Internet to function, is available to download on the Google Play Store. A later update to the app displayed information on sounds such as clapping, laughter, music, applause, and whistling. In May 2020, the app started supporting transcription in Albanian, Burmese, Estonian, Macedonian, Mongolian, Punjabi, and Uzbek, supporting 70 languages. In March 2022, the app was updated with support to transcribe offline, without Internet connection, so long as the appropriate language pack has been installed. The offline mode is only available for devices with 6GB of RAM and certain Google Pixel devices.

Pronunciation assessment

Automatic pronunciation assessment uses computer speech recognition to determine how accurately speech has been pronounced, instead of relying on a human instructor or proctor. It is also called speech verification, pronunciation evaluation, and pronunciation scoring. This technology is used to grade speech quality, for language testing, for computer-aided pronunciation teaching (CAPT) in computer-assisted language learning (CALL), for speaking skill remediation, and for accent reduction. Pronunciation assessment is different from dictation or automatic transcription, because instead of determining unknown speech, it verifies learners' pronunciation of known word(s), often from prior transcription of the same utterance; ideally scoring the intelligibility of the learners' speech. Sometimes pronunciation assessment evaluates the prosody of the learners' speech, such as intonation, pitch, tempo, rhythm, and syllable and word stress, although those are usually not essential for being understood in most languages. Pronunciation assessment is also used in reading tutoring, for example in products from Google, Microsoft, and Amira Learning. Automatic pronunciation assessment can also be used to help diagnose and treat speech disorders such as apraxia. == Intelligibility == Intelligibility refers to how well a learner's utterance is understood by a listener, rather than how much it sounds like a native speaker. This is separate from measures of fluency, such as so-called "Goodness of Pronunciation" (GoP) scores, which estimate how closely an utterance aligns with those of native speakers. Intelligibility is widely regarded as the most important communicative goal in pronunciation teaching and assessment. For example, in the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR) assessment criteria for "overall phonological control", intelligibility outweighs formally correct pronunciation at all levels. Studies in applied linguistics have shown that accent reduction does not always increase intelligibility because listeners can often comprehend heavily accented speech without difficulty. Pronunciation assessment systems often rely on acoustic methods such as GoP which compare learner speech to reference models to produce phoneme-level scores, which are in turn aggregated to produce word and phrase scores. While these methods are effective for identifying deviations from native speakers' utterances, they do not effectively measure how understandable speech is to human listeners. Intelligibility is influenced by broader linguistic and contextual factors such as stress placement, speech rate, and coarticulation, which are not represented in purely segmental scores. The earliest work on pronunciation assessment avoided measuring genuine listener intelligibility, a shortcoming corrected in 2011 at the Toyohashi University of Technology, and included in the Versant high-stakes English fluency assessment from Pearson and mobile apps from 17zuoye Education & Technology, but still missing in 2023 products from Google Search, Microsoft, Educational Testing Service, Speechace, and ELSA. Assessing authentic listener intelligibility is essential for avoiding inaccuracies from accent bias, especially in high-stakes assessments; from words with multiple correct pronunciations; and from phoneme coding errors in machine-readable pronunciation dictionaries. In 2022, researchers found that some newer speech-to-text systems, based on end-to-end reinforcement learning to map audio signals directly into words, produce word and phrase confidence scores (from 10-25ms audio frame logit aggregation) closely correlated with genuine listener intelligibility. Others have been able to assess intelligibility using Levenshtein or dynamic time warping distance measures from Wav2Vec2 representation of good speech. Further work through 2025 has focused specifically on measuring intelligibility. A 2025 study of 42 pronunciation and speech coaching apps (32 mobile and 10 web) found that none offered intelligibility assessment. Instead, most provided only segmental and accent-focused scoring. About two-thirds of the apps provided some form of specific pronunciation feedback, usually with phonetic transcriptions, but accompanied by visual cues (such as animations of the vocal tract or the lips and tongue from the front) in only about 5% of the apps. Less than a third provided feedback on learner perception of exemplar speech. == Evaluation == Although there are as yet no industry-standard benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment accuracy, researchers occasionally release evaluation speech corpuses for others to use for improving assessment quality. Such evaluation databases often emphasize formally unaccented pronunciation to the exclusion of genuine intelligibility evident from blinded listener transcriptions. As of mid-2025, state of the art approaches for automatically transcribing phonemes typically achieve an error rate of about 10% from known good speech. The International Speech Communication Association (ISCA) 2025 Workshop on Speech and Language Technology in Education (SLaTE) administered a Speak & Improve Challenge: Spoken Language Assessment and Feedback, introducing benchmarks for evaluating pronunciation assessment and remediation systems across languages, accents, and learner populations. The challenge emphasized cross-lingual generalization and alignment with human intelligibility judgments, for more robust and interpretable assessment systems. Ethical issues in pronunciation assessment are present in both human and automatic methods. Authentic validity, fairness, and mitigating bias in evaluation are all crucial. Diverse speech data should be included in automatic pronunciation assessment models. Combining human judgments, especially blinded transcriptions from a wide diversity of listeners, with automated feedback can improve accuracy and fairness. Second language learners benefit substantially from their use of widely available speech recognition systems for dictation, virtual assistants, and AI chatbots. In such systems, users naturally try to correct their own errors evident in speech recognition results that they notice. Such use improves their grammar and vocabulary development along with their pronunciation skills. The extent to which explicit pronunciation assessment and remediation approaches improve on such self-directed interactions remains an open question. Similarly, automatic dictation results have been shown to reflect intelligibility about as well as human scorers. == Recent developments == During 2021–22, a smartphone-based CAPT system was used to sense articulation through both audible and inaudible signals, providing feedback at the phoneme level. Some promising areas for improvement which were being developed in 2024 include articulatory feature extraction and transfer learning to suppress unnecessary corrections. Other interesting advances under development include "augmented reality" interfaces for mobile devices using optical character recognition to provide pronunciation training on text found in user environments. In 2024, audio multimodal large language models were first described as assessing pronunciation. That work has been carried forward by other researchers in 2025 who report positive results. Subsequently, researchers demonstrated pronunciation scoring by providing a language model with textual descriptions of speech, including the speech-to-text transcript, phoneme sequences, pauses, and phoneme sequence matching; this approach can achieve performance similar to multimodal LLMs that analyze raw audio while avoiding their higher computational cost. In 2025, the Duolingo English Test authors published a description of their pronunciation assessment method, purportedly built to measure intelligibility rather than accent imitation. While achieving a correlation of 0.82 with expert human ratings, very close to inter-rater agreement and outperforming alternative methods, the method is nonetheless based on experts' scores along the six-point CEFR common reference levels scale, instead of actual blinded listener transcriptions. Further promising work in 2025 includes assessment feedback aligning learner speech to synthetic utterances using interpretable features, identifying continuous spans of words for remediation feedback; synthesizing corrected speech matching learners' self-perceived voices, which they prefer and imitate more accurately as corrections; and streaming such interactions. On January 21, 2026, Educational Testing Service's TOEFL iBT high-stakes English language test, required by US university admissions and employers from English as a foreign language applicants more often than all other internet-based tests combined, changed its speaking assessments. While official rubrics claim that the new scoring will be based primarily on intelligibility, the new test's technical description indicates that it ju

Artificial intelligence in fraud detection

Artificial intelligence is used by many different businesses and organizations. It is widely used in the financial sector, especially by accounting firms, to help detect fraud. In 2022, PricewaterhouseCoopers reported that fraud has impacted 46% of all businesses in the world. The shift from working in person to working from home has brought increased access to data. According to an FTC (Federal Trade Commission) study from 2022, customers reported fraud of approximately $5.8 billion in 2021, an increase of 70% from the year before. The majority of these scams were imposter scams and online shopping frauds. Furthermore, artificial intelligence plays a crucial role in developing advanced algorithms and machine learning models that enhance fraud detection systems, enabling businesses to stay ahead of evolving fraudulent tactics in an increasingly digital landscape. == Tools == === Expert systems === Expert systems were first designed in the 1970s as an expansion into artificial intelligence technologies. Their design is based on the premise of decreasing potential user error in decision-making and emulating mental reasoning used by experts in a particular field. They differentiate themselves from traditional linear reasoning models by separating identified points in data and processing them individually at the same time. Though, these systems do not rely purely on machine-learned intelligence. Information regarding rules, practices, and procedures in the form of "if-then" statements are implemented into the programming of the system. Users interact with the system by feeding information into the system either through direct entry or import of external data. An inference system compares the information provided by the user with corresponding rules that are believed to specifically apply to the situation. Using this information and the corresponding rules will be used to create a solution to the user's query. Expert systems will generally not operate properly when the common procedures for a specified situation are ambiguous due to the need for well-defined rules. Implementation of expert systems in accounting procedures is feasible in areas where professional judgment is required. Situations where expert systems are applicable include investigations into transactions that involve potential fraudulent entries, instances of going concern, and the evaluation of risk in the planning stages of an audit. === Continuous auditing === Continuous auditing is a set of processes that assess various aspects of information gathered in an audit to classify areas of risk and potential weaknesses in financial Internal controls at a more frequent rate than traditional methods. Instead of analyzing recorded transactions and journal entries periodically, continuous auditing focuses on interpreting the character of these actions more frequently. The frequency of these processes being undertaken as well as highlighting areas of importance is up to the discretion of their implementer, who commonly makes such decisions based on the level of risk in the accounts being evaluated and the goals of implementing the system. Performance of these processes can occur as frequently as being nearly instantaneous with an entry being posted. The processes involved with analyzing financial data in continuous auditing can include the creation of spreadsheets to allow for interactive information gathering, calculation of financial ratios for comparison with previously created models, and detection of errors in entered figures. A primary goal of this practice is to allow for quicker and easier detection of instances of faulty controls, errors, and instances of fraud. === Machine learning and deep learning === The ability of machine learning and deep learning to swiftly and effectively sort through vast volumes of data in the forms of various documents relevant to companies and documents being audited makes them applicable to the domains of audit and fraud detection. Examples of this include recognizing key language in contracts, identifying levels of risk of fraud in transactions, and assessing journal entries for misstatement. == Applications == === 'Big 4' Accounting Firms === Deloitte created an Al-enabled document-reviewing system in 2014. The system automates the method of reviewing and extracting relevant information from different business documents. Deloitte claims that this innovation has made a difference by reducing time spent going through lawful contract documents, invoices, money-related articulations, and board minutes by up to 50%. Working with IBM's Watson, Deloitte is developing cognitive-technology-enhanced commerce arrangements for its clients. LeasePoint is fueled by IBM TRIRIGA (this product evolved into IBM Maximo Real Estate and Facilities) and uses Deloitte's industrial information to create an end-to-end leasing portfolio. Automated Cognitive Resource Assessment employs IBM's Maximo innovation to progress the proficiency of asset inspection. Ernst and Young (EY) connected Al to the investigation of lease contracts. EY (Australia) has also received Al-enabled auditing technology. Collaborating with H20.ai, PwC developed an Al-enabled framework (GL.ai) capable of analyzing reports and preparing reports. PwC claims to have made a significant investment in normal dialect processing (NLP), an Al-enabled innovation to process unstructured information efficiently. KPMG built a portfolio of Al instruments, called KPMG Ignite, to upgrade trade decisions and forms. Working with Microsoft and IBM Watson, KPMG is creating instruments to coordinate Al, data analytics, Cognitive Technologies, and RPA. == Advantages == === Efficiency === The process of auditing an entity in an attempt to detect fraudulent activity requires the repeating of investigatory processes until an error or misstatement may be identified. Under traditional methods, these processes would be carried out by a human being. Proponents of artificial intelligence in fraud detection have stated that these traditional methods are inefficient and can be more quickly accomplished with the aid of an intelligent computing system. A survey of 400 chief executive officers created by KPMG in 2016 found that approximately 58% believed that artificial intelligence would play a key role in making audits more efficient in the future. === Data interpretation === Higher levels of fraud detection entail the use of professional judgement to interpret data. Supporters of artificial intelligence being used in financial audits have claimed that increased risks from instances of higher data interpretation can be minimized through such technologies. One necessary element of an audit of financial statements that requires professional judgement is the implementation of thresholds for materiality. Materiality entails the distinction between errors and transactions in financial statements that would impact decisions made by users of those financial statements. The threshold for materiality in an audit is set by the auditor based on various factors. Artificial intelligence has been used to interpret data and suggest materiality thresholds to be implemented through the use of expert systems. === Decreased costs === Those in favor of using artificial intelligence to complete investigations of fraud have stated that such technologies decrease the amount of time required to complete tasks that are repetitive. The claim further states that such efficiencies allow for lowered resource requirements, which can then be further spent on tasks that have not been fully automated. The audit firm Ernst & Young has posited these claims by declaring that their deep learning systems have been used to reduce time spent on administrative tasks by analyzing relevant audit documents. According to the firm, this has allowed their employees to focus more on judgement and analysis. == Disadvantages == === Job Displacement === The inescapable reception of computer based intelligence and robotization advancements might prompt critical work relocation across different enterprises. As artificial intelligence frameworks become more equipped for performing undertakings customarily completed by people, there is a worry that specific work jobs could become out of date, prompting joblessness and financial imbalance. === Initial investment requirement === Along with a knowledge of coding and building systems through computer programs, we are seeing the advantages of these systems, but since they are so new, they require a large investment to start building such a system. Any firm that is planning on implementing an AI system to detect fraud must hire a team of data scientists, along with upgrading their cloud system and data storage. The system must be consistently monitored and updated to be the most efficient form of itself, otherwise the likelihood of fraud being involved in those transactions increases. If one does not initially invest in such a syst