Egocentric vision or first-person vision is a sub-field of computer vision that entails analyzing images and videos captured by a wearable camera, which is typically worn on the head or on the chest and naturally approximates the visual field of the camera wearer. Consequently, visual data capture the part of the scene on which the user focuses to carry out the task at hand and offer a valuable perspective to understand the user's activities and their context in a naturalistic setting. The wearable camera looking forwards is often supplemented with a camera looking inward at the user's eye and able to measure a user's eye gaze, which is useful to reveal attention and to better understand the user's activity and intentions. == History == The idea of using a wearable camera to gather visual data from a first-person perspective dates back to the 70s, when Steve Mann invented "Digital Eye Glass", a device that, when worn, causes the human eye itself to effectively become both an electronic camera and a television display. Subsequently, wearable cameras were used for health-related applications in the context of Humanistic Intelligence and Wearable AI. Egocentric vision is best done from the point-of-eye, but may also be done by way of a neck-worn camera when eyeglasses would be in-the-way. This neck-worn variant was popularized by way of the Microsoft SenseCam in 2006 for experimental health research works. The interest of the computer vision community into the egocentric paradigm has been arising slowly entering the 2010s and it is rapidly growing in recent years, boosted by both the impressive advances in the field of wearable technology and by the increasing number of potential applications. The prototypical first-person vision system described by Kanade and Hebert, in 2012 is composed by three basic components: a localization component able to estimate the surrounding, a recognition component able to identify object and people, and an activity recognition component, able to provide information about the current activity of the user. Together, these three components provide a complete situational awareness of the user, which in turn can be used to provide assistance to the user or to the caregiver. Following this idea, the first computational techniques for egocentric analysis focused on hand-related activity recognition and social interaction analysis. Also, given the unconstrained nature of the video and the huge amount of data generated, temporal segmentation and summarization were among the first problems addressed. After almost ten years of egocentric vision (2007–2017), the field is still undergoing diversification. Emerging research topics include: Social saliency estimation Multi-agent egocentric vision systems Privacy preserving techniques and applications Attention-based activity analysis Social interaction analysis Hand pose analysis Ego graphical User Interfaces (EUI) Understanding social dynamics and attention Revisiting robotic vision and machine vision as egocentric sensing Activity forecasting Gaze prediction == Technical challenges == Today's wearable cameras are small and lightweight digital recording devices that can acquire images and videos automatically, without the user intervention, with different resolutions and frame rates, and from a first-person point of view. Therefore, wearable cameras are naturally primed to gather visual information from our everyday interactions since they offer an intimate perspective of the visual field of the camera wearer. Depending on the frame rate, it is common to distinguish between photo-cameras (also called lifelogging cameras) and video-cameras. The former (e.g., Narrative Clip and Microsoft SenseCam), are commonly worn on the chest, and are characterized by a very low frame rate (up to 2fpm) that allows to capture images over a long period of time without the need of recharging the battery. Consequently, they offer considerable potential for inferring knowledge about e.g. behaviour patterns, habits or lifestyle of the user. However, due to the low frame-rate and the free motion of the camera, temporally adjacent images typically present abrupt appearance changes so that motion features cannot be reliably estimated. The latter (e.g., Google Glass, GoPro), are commonly mounted on the head, and capture conventional video (around 35fps) that allows to capture fine temporal details of interactions. Consequently, they offer potential for in-depth analysis of daily or special activities. However, since the camera is moving with the wearer head, it becomes more difficult to estimate the global motion of the wearer and in the case of abrupt movements, the images can result blurred. In both cases, since the camera is worn in a naturalistic setting, visual data present a huge variability in terms of illumination conditions and object appearance. Moreover, the camera wearer is not visible in the image and what he/she is doing has to be inferred from the information in the visual field of the camera, implying that important information about the wearer, such for instance as pose or facial expression estimation, is not available. == Applications == A collection of studies published in a special theme issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine has demonstrated the potential of lifelogs captured through wearable cameras from a number of viewpoints. In particular, it has been shown that used as a tool for understanding and tracking lifestyle behaviour, lifelogs would enable the prevention of noncommunicable diseases associated to unhealthy trends and risky profiles (such as obesity and depression). In addition, used as a tool of re-memory cognitive training, lifelogs would enable the prevention of cognitive and functional decline in elderly people. More recently, egocentric cameras have been used to study human and animal cognition, human-human social interaction, human-robot interaction, human expertise in complex tasks. Other applications include navigation/assistive technologies for the blind, monitoring and assistance of industrial workflows, and augmented reality interfaces.
3D-Coat
3DCoat is a commercial digital sculpting program from Pilgway designed to create free-form organic and hard surfaced 3D models, with tools which enable users to sculpt, add polygonal topology (automatically or manually), create UV maps (automatically or manually), texture the resulting models with natural painting tools, and render static images or animated "turntable" movies. The program can also be used to modify imported 3D models from a number of commercial 3D software products by means of plugins called Applinks. Imported models can be converted into voxel objects for further refinement and for adding high resolution detail, complete UV unwrapping and mapping, as well as adding PBR textures for displacement, bump maps, specular and diffuse color maps. A live connection to a chosen external 3D application can be established through the Applink pipeline, allowing for the transfer of model and texture information. 3DCoat specializes in voxel sculpting and polygonal sculpting using dynamic patch tessellation technology and polygonal sculpting tools. It includes "auto-retopology", a proprietary skinning algorithm which generates a polygonal mesh skin over any voxel sculpture, composed primarily of quadrangles.
Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
The Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems, commonly known as the GGE on LAWS, refers to a group of governmental experts established under the framework of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), a United Nations arms control framework. The group examines legal, ethical, societal and moral questions that arise from the increased use of autonomous robots to carry weapons and to be programmed to engage in combat in various situations that might arise, including battles between countries, or in patrolling border areas or sensitive areas, or other similar roles. As of 18 March 2025, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons had 128 High Contracting Parties. In the Geneva Conventions, the term "High Contracting Parties" refers to the states that have joined the conventions and are therefore bound to uphold them. Among the countries that have joined are states with tense relations or ongoing armed conflict with one another, including Russia and Ukraine, Israel and the State of Palestine, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. == Background == In 2013, the Meeting of State Parties to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed on a mandate on lethal autonomous weapon systems and tasked its chairperson with convening an informal Meeting of Experts to discuss issues related to emerging technologies in the area of LAWS. Those informal Meetings of Experts were then held in 2014, 2015 and 2016, and their reports fed into subsequent meetings of the High Contracting Parties. At the Fifth CCW Review Conference in 2016, the High Contracting Parties decided to establish an open-ended Group of Governmental Experts on emerging technologies in the area of LAWS, building on the earlier expert meetings. Since then, the group has been reconvened annually. In 2023, the Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the CCW decided that the GGE on LAWS would continue its work in 2024 and 2025. The group was tasked with developing, by consensus, elements of a possible instrument, without predetermining its form, as well as other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems, drawing on existing CCW protocols, earlier recommendations, state proposals, and legal, military, and technological expertise. == 2024 == In 2024, the GGE met twice, and the group was chaired by Robert in den Bosch, the Netherlands' disarmament ambassador. The 2024 Meeting of the High Contracting Parties decided that the group would meet for 10 days in 2025, in two five-day sessions, and reaffirmed its mandate to continue work by consensus on possible elements of an instrument and other measures addressing lethal autonomous weapon systems. == 2025 == At its first 2025 session, held in Geneva from 3 to 7 March 2025, the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems discussed revisions to the chair's rolling text. The text was structured into five sections, or "boxes", though delegates held differing views on whether headings were useful or appropriate. Broadly, the discussions covered the characterization of lethal autonomous weapon systems, the application of international humanitarian law, possible prohibitions and regulations, legal review, and questions of accountability and responsibility. At its second session, held from 1 to 5 September 2025, delegations continued work on the chair's rolling text, which set out elements of a possible instrument and was organized into five thematic "boxes". == 2026 == === Developments before the 2026 session === A few weeks before the meeting, autonomous weapons drew renewed attention when the United States pressured Anthropic to revise the terms of use for its AI model Claude. Anthropic prohibited the model's use for mass domestic surveillance and for fully autonomous weapons operating without human oversight, while reports also emerged that OpenAI had reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of War for the use of its AI models, reportedly stipulating that they would not independently direct autonomous weapons where human control was required. The U.S. military nevertheless continued to use Claude during its war on Iran, and there was increasing alarm about the use of AI-assisted semi-autonomous weapons in conflicts including those in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, and Iran. Before the start of the sessions, Robert in den Bosch, as chair, warned that progress was urgent because technological developments were moving quickly. At the same time, although states agreed that international humanitarian law applied to LAWS, specific internationally binding standards governing such systems remained largely absent. A key divide before the session was that Russia and the United States opposed new legally binding instruments, while other states argued that new rules were necessary. According to Robert in den Bosch, the talks could lead to new rules, amendments to an existing convention, or a new treaty. === First session === From 2 to 6 March 2026, the group held its penultimate session under the group's three-year mandate. Delegations discussed the chair's rolling draft text, circulated in December 2025, on elements of a possible instrument or other measures concerning lethal autonomous weapon systems. In revised text circulated by the chair on 5 March 2026, a lethal autonomous weapon system was characterized as "a functionally integrated combination of one or more weapons and technological components, that can identify, select, and engage a target, without intervention by a human operator in the execution of these tasks". The text was divided into five boxes to structure discussion. During the session, delegates conducted a first reading of the draft text, and the chair later circulated revised language for several sections. Informal consultations were also held. According to campaign groups and participating observers, support grew during the week for moving to negotiations on the basis of the rolling text, with more than 70 states said to support that step by the end of the session, though some participants warned that attempts to bridge differences risked blurring the group's core purpose. The International Committee of the Red Cross argued that the text should not only restate existing international humanitarian law, but also clarify how those rules apply to autonomous weapons and set out additional measures tailored to the specific challenges such systems raise. Stop Killer Robots likewise emphasized the need to preserve meaningful human judgment and control over increasingly autonomous systems. During the discussions, the U.S. delegation opposed the term "human control" and reportedly proposed the alternative phrase "good faith human judgment and care". Other delegations rejected that wording as too weak, while many states continued to insist that meaningful human control over weapon systems remained essential.
Direct voice input
Direct voice input (DVI), sometimes called voice input control (VIC), is a style of human–machine interaction "HMI" in which the user makes voice commands to issue instructions to the machine through speech recognition. In the field of military aviation, DVI has been introduced into the cockpits of several modern military aircraft, such as the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II, the Dassault Rafale, the KF-21 Boramae and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Such systems have also been used for various other purposes, including industry control systems and speech recognition assistance for impaired individuals. == Overview == DVI systems can be divided into two major categories of functionality: "user-dependent" or "user-independent". A user-dependent system requires that a personal voice template to be generated for a specific person; the template for this individual has to be loaded onto their assigned machine prior to use of the DVI system for it to function properly. In contrast, a user-independent system does not require any personal voice template, being intended to respond correctly to the voice of any user. They can also be categorised between "discrete recognition" and "continuous recognition". Users of a discrete recognition system must pause between each word so that the DVI system can identify the separations between each word, while a continuous speech recognition system is capable of understanding a normal rate of speech. During the mid-2000s, researchers at the National Aerospace Laboratory in the Netherlands examined the use of DVI in the "GRACE" simulator; a total of twelve pilots participated in the ensuing experiment. The tests performed reportedly revealed that, while the hardware itself functioned well, several improvements were desirable prior to real-world deployment on aircraft since DVI operations actually consumed more time in comparison to traditional existing methods. Recommendations for improvements included the adoption of simpler syntax, the achievement of a greater recognition rate, and a decrease in response times; all of the issues encountered were determined to be of a technological nature, and were deemed feasible to resolve. The researchers concluded that in cockpits, especially during emergencies where pilots have to operate entirely on their own, a DVI system could be highly relevant, but that it was not of crucial importance during most other conceivable scenarios. Around the same time, evaluations of DVI systems for civil aviation purposes were conducted within the framework of Project SafeSound, coordinated by the European Union. It involved the observation of pilot workloads in real-world cockpits and contrasting them against pilot activity in flight simulators using both conventional systems and DVI assistance. The project aimed to enhance aviation safety and to decrease the workload in both ground and flight operations via the application of enhanced audio functions. == Applications == === Aviation === Prior to its widespread deployment, a handful of conventional military aircraft were converted to trial DVI systems; examples include the Harrier AV-8B and F-16 VISTA. In another case, a General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon simulator was modified with DVI for a voice control study that was undertaken by the Royal Netherlands Air Force. DVI trials have also been conducted on helicopters, including the Boeing AH-64 Apache, showing the potential to improve flight safety and mission effectiveness. Numerous modern fighter aircraft have been outfitted with DVI systems, often in combination with various other man-machine interface schemes, such as HOTAS-compliant controls and other advanced control technologies. The combination of Voice and HOTAS control schemes has sometimes been referred to as the "V-TAS" concept. A prominent fighter aircraft to be furnished with a V-TAS cockpit is the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II also features a DVI system, which was developed by Adacel. Other examples includes the Dassault Rafale and the Saab JAS 39 Gripen. Numerous aircraft have been planned to use DVI. At one stage, the United States Air Force had sought to integrate DVI upon the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor; however, the technology was eventually judged to pose too many technical risks at that point in time, and thus such efforts were abandoned. === Personal === By 1990, working prototypes of speech recognition systems were being demonstrated; these were being promoted for the purpose of providing an effective man-machine interface for individuals with impaired speech. Techniques employed included time-encoded digital speech and automatic token set selection. Investigations of these early DVI systems reportedly included the use of automatic diagnostic routines and limited-scale trials using volunteers. During the 2010s, various companies were offering voice recognition systems to the general public in the form of personal digital assistants. One example is the Google Voice service, which allows users to pose questions via a DVI package installed on either a personal computer, tablet, or mobile phone. Numerous digital assistants have been developed, such as Amazon Echo, Siri, and Cortana, that use DVI to interact with users. === Commercial === DVI technology has enabled automated telephone systems to be widely deployed. Many companies commonly use centralised phone systems that route callers to the correct department via such methods. Various car manufacturers have also furnished their road vehicles with DVI systems; these typically allow drivers to control infotainment systems and interact with mobile phones with more convenience than legacy methods. During the late 1980s, investigations into the use of DVI systems for controlling CNC machines and other manufacturing apparatus were underway. During the 2010s, such systems were being used for logistics and warehouse management purposes.
Feed forward (control)
A feed forward (sometimes written feedforward) is an element or pathway within a control system that passes a controlling signal from a source in its external environment to a load elsewhere in its external environment. This is often a command signal from an external operator. In control engineering, a feedforward control system is a control system that uses sensors to detect disturbances affecting the system and then applies an additional input to minimize the effect of the disturbance. This requires a mathematical model of the system so that the effect of disturbances can be properly predicted. A control system which has only feed-forward behavior responds to its control signal in a pre-defined way without responding to the way the system reacts; it is in contrast with a system that also has feedback, which adjusts the input to take account of how it affects the system, and how the system itself may vary unpredictably. In a feed-forward system, the control variable adjustment is not error-based. Instead it is based on knowledge about the process in the form of a mathematical model of the process and knowledge about, or measurements of, the process disturbances. Some prerequisites are needed for control scheme to be reliable by pure feed-forward without feedback: the external command or controlling signal must be available, and the effect of the output of the system on the load should be known (that usually means that the load must be predictably unchanging with time). Sometimes pure feed-forward control without feedback is called 'ballistic', because once a control signal has been sent, it cannot be further adjusted; any corrective adjustment must be by way of a new control signal. In contrast, 'cruise control' adjusts the output in response to the load that it encounters, by a feedback mechanism. These systems could relate to control theory, physiology, or computing. == Overview == With feed-forward or feedforward control, the disturbances are measured and accounted for before they have time to affect the system. In the house example, a feed-forward system may measure the fact that the door is opened and automatically turn on the heater before the house can get too cold. The difficulty with feed-forward control is that the effects of the disturbances on the system must be accurately predicted, and there must not be any unmeasured disturbances. For instance, if a window was opened that was not being measured, the feed-forward-controlled thermostat might let the house cool down. The term has specific meaning within the field of CPU-based automatic control. The discipline of feedforward control as it relates to modern, CPU based automatic controls is widely discussed, but is seldom practiced due to the difficulty and expense of developing or providing for the mathematical model required to facilitate this type of control. Open-loop control and feedback control, often based on canned PID control algorithms, are much more widely used. There are three types of control systems: open-loop, feed-forward, and feedback. An example of a pure open-loop control system is manual non-power-assisted steering of a motor car; the steering system does not have access to an auxiliary power source and does not respond to varying resistance to turning of the direction wheels; the driver must make that response without help from the steering system. In comparison, power steering has access to a controlled auxiliary power source, which depends on the engine speed. When the steering wheel is turned, a valve is opened which allows fluid under pressure to turn the wheels. A sensor monitors that pressure so that the valve only opens enough to cause the correct pressure to reach the wheel turning mechanism. This is feed-forward control where the output of the system, the change in direction of travel of the vehicle, plays no part in the system. See Model predictive control. If the driver is included in the system, then they do provide a feedback path by observing the direction of travel and compensating for errors by turning the steering wheel. In that case you have a feedback system, and the block labeled System in Figure(c) is a feed-forward system. In other words, systems of different types can be nested, and the overall system regarded as a black-box. Feedforward control is distinctly different from open-loop control and teleoperator systems. Feedforward control requires a mathematical model of the plant (process and/or machine being controlled) and the plant's relationship to any inputs or feedback the system might receive. Neither open-loop control nor teleoperator systems require the sophistication of a mathematical model of the physical system or plant being controlled. Control based on operator input without integral processing and interpretation through a mathematical model of the system is a teleoperator system and is not considered feedforward control. == History == Historically, the use of the term feedforward is found in works by Harold S. Black in US patent 1686792 (invented 17 March 1923) and D. M. MacKay as early as 1956. While MacKay's work is in the field of biological control theory, he speaks only of feedforward systems. MacKay does not mention feedforward control or allude to the discipline of feedforward controls. MacKay and other early writers who use the term feedforward are generally writing about theories of how human or animal brains work. Black also has US patent 2102671 invented 2 August 1927 on the technique of feedback applied to electronic systems. The discipline of feedforward controls was largely developed by professors and graduate students at Georgia Tech, MIT, Stanford and Carnegie Mellon. Feedforward is not typically hyphenated in scholarly publications. Meckl and Seering of MIT and Book and Dickerson of Georgia Tech began the development of the concepts of Feedforward Control in the mid-1970s. The discipline of Feedforward Controls was well defined in many scholarly papers, articles and books by the late 1980s. == Benefits == The benefits of feedforward control are significant and can often justify the extra cost, time and effort required to implement the technology. Control accuracy can often be improved by as much as an order of magnitude if the mathematical model is of sufficient quality and implementation of the feedforward control law is well thought out. Energy consumption by the feedforward control system and its driver is typically substantially lower than with other controls. Stability is enhanced such that the controlled device can be built of lower cost, lighter weight, springier materials while still being highly accurate and able to operate at high speeds. Other benefits of feedforward control include reduced wear and tear on equipment, lower maintenance costs, higher reliability and a substantial reduction in hysteresis. Feedforward control is often combined with feedback control to optimize performance. == Model == The mathematical model of the plant (machine, process or organism) used by the feedforward control system may be created and input by a control engineer or it may be learned by the control system. Control systems capable of learning and/or adapting their mathematical model have become more practical as microprocessor speeds have increased. The discipline of modern feedforward control was itself made possible by the invention of microprocessors. Feedforward control requires integration of the mathematical model into the control algorithm such that it is used to determine the control actions based on what is known about the state of the system being controlled. In the case of control for a lightweight, flexible robotic arm, this could be as simple as compensating between when the robot arm is carrying a payload and when it is not. The target joint angles are adjusted to place the payload in the desired position based on knowing the deflections in the arm from the mathematical model's interpretation of the disturbance caused by the payload. Systems that plan actions and then pass the plan to a different system for execution do not satisfy the above definition of feedforward control. Unless the system includes a means to detect a disturbance or receive an input and process that input through the mathematical model to determine the required modification to the control action, it is not true feedforward control. === Open system === In control theory, an open system is a feed forward system that does not have any feedback loop to control its output. In contrast, a closed system uses on a feedback loop to control the operation of the system. In an open system, the output of the system is not fed back into the input to the system for control or operation. == Applications == === Physiological feed-forward system === In physiology, feed-forward control is exemplified by the normal anticipatory regulation of heartbeat in advance of actual physical exertion by the central autonomic network. Feed-forward
AdTruth
AdTruth is a software product and the digital media division of 41st Parameter, a company headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona, with regional offices in San Jose, California; London, England; and Munich, Germany. AdTruth allows marketers to recognize and reach target audiences across online devices. AdTruth software identifies users for targeting, tracking, performance tracking across digital media, including mobile and desktop, by analysing patterns in large numbers of advertisements served over the internet, rather than through the use of cookies. == History == AdTruth was founded in 2011 by Ori Eisen of 41st Parameter, to repurpose the company's fraud detection and prevention technology, for use within the advertising industry to accurately target intended audiences, particularly in mobile. Eisen was joined by James Lamberti in the role of vice president and general manager. In 2012 41st Parameter raised $13 million in Series D financing from Norwest Venture Partners, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Jafco Ventures and Georgian Partners, bringing total funding to about $35 million. In May 2012, AdTruth hosted a meeting of digital media executives to discuss Apple’s UDID deprecation, with the intent of developing a device-neutral replacement standard. AdTruth joined the World Wide Web Consortium's Tracking Protection Working Group, which provides guidance for implementing and adhering to Do Not Track policies. AdTruth also worked with privacy firm Truste to create a privacy compliant Do Not Track-style mechanism for mobile. In 2013, the company Experian purchased 41st Parameter, acquiring AdTruth as part of the deal. == Product == AdTruth software helps marketers track, target and retarget consumers using more than 100 parameters, including milliseconds in differences in the internal clock setting, to recognize a particular device anonymously. AdTruth's technology uses non-UDID information to identify a wide range of devices for cookieless ad targeting. Its technology currently has about a 90 percent accuracy rate on iOS, higher on Android and desktop. AdTruth also has mobile web to app bridging capabilities as well as DeviceInsight technology, enabling marketers to identify users across mobile web and app content. 41st Parameter's patented AdTruth technology is being used by MdotM, in response to the deprecation of the UDID that included tracking and targeting capabilities. == Competitors == AdTruth's main competitor is BlueCava, which deploys a similar device-fingerprinting technology.
Digital art
Digital art, or the digital arts, is artistic work that uses digital technology as part of the creative or presentational process. It can also refer to computational art that uses and engages with digital media. Since the 1960s, various names have been used to describe digital art, including computer art, electronic art, multimedia art, and new media art. Digital art includes pieces stored on physical media, such as with digital painting, as well as digital galleries on websites. Digital art also extends to the field of visual computing. == History == In the early 1960s, John Whitney developed the first computer-generated art using mathematical operations. In 1963, Ivan Sutherland invented the first user interactive computer-graphics interface known as Sketchpad. Between 1974 and 1977, Salvador Dalí created two big canvases of Gala Contemplating the Mediterranean Sea which at a distance of 20 meters is transformed into the portrait of Abraham Lincoln (Homage to Rothko) and prints of Lincoln in Dalivision based on a portrait of Abraham Lincoln processed on a computer by Leon Harmon published in "The Recognition of Faces". The technique is similar to what later became known as photographic mosaics. Andy Warhol created digital art using an Amiga where the computer was publicly introduced at the Lincoln Center in July 1985. An image of Debbie Harry was captured in monochrome from a video camera and digitized into a graphics program called ProPaint. Warhol manipulated the image by adding color using flood fills. == Art made for digital media == Artwork that is highly computational, presented through digital media, and explicitly engages with digital technologies are categorized as "art made for digital media". This differs from art using digital tools, which incorporate digital technology in the creation process but may exist outside the digital world. Digital art historian Christiane Paul writes that it "is highly problematic to classify all art that makes use of digital technologies somewhere in its production and dissemination process as digital art since it makes it almost impossible to arrive at any unifying statement about the art form". == Art that uses digital tools == Digital art can be purely computer-generated (such as fractals and algorithmic art) or taken from other sources, such as a scanned photograph or an image drawn using vector graphics software using a mouse or graphics tablet. Artworks are considered digital paintings when created similarly to non-digital paintings but using software on a computer platform and digitally outputting the resulting image as painted on canvas. Despite differing viewpoints on digital technology's impact on the arts, a consensus exists within the digital art community about its significant contribution to expanding the creative domain, i.e., that it has greatly broadened the creative opportunities available to professional and non-professional artists alike. == Art theorists and art historians == Notable art theorists and historians in this field include: Oliver Grau, Jon Ippolito, Christiane Paul, Frank Popper, Jasia Reichardt, Mario Costa, Christine Buci-Glucksmann, Dominique Moulon, Roy Ascott, Catherine Perret, Margot Lovejoy, Edmond Couchot, Tina Rivers Ryan, Fred Forest and Edward A. Shanken. === Digital painting === Digital painting is either a physical painting made with the use of digital electronics and spray paint robotics within the digital art fine art context or pictorial art imagery made with pixels on a computer screen that mimics artworks from the traditional histories of painting and illustration. === Artificial intelligence art === Artists have used artificial intelligence to create artwork since at least the 1960s. Since their design in 2014, some artists have created artwork using a generative adversarial network (GAN), which is a machine learning framework that allows two "algorithms" to compete with each other and iterate. It can be used to generate pictures that have visual effects similar to traditional fine art. The essential idea of image generators is that people can use text descriptions to let AI convert their text into visual picture content. Anyone can turn their language into a painting through a picture generator. == Digital art education == Digital art education has become more common with the advancement of digital hardware and software. From hardware such as graphics tablets, styluses, tablets, 3D scanners, virtual reality headsets, and digital cameras; to software such as digital art software, 3D modeling software, 3D rendering, digital sculpting, 2D graphics software, digital painting, 3D terrain generation, 2D animation software, 3D animation software, raster graphics editors, vector graphics editors, mathematical art software, and video editing software. == Scholarship and archives == In addition to the creation of original art, research methods that utilize AI have been generated to quantitatively analyze digital art collections. This has been made possible due to the large-scale digitization of artwork in the past few decades. Although the main goal of digitization was to allow for accessibility and exploration of these collections, the use of AI in analyzing them has brought about new research perspectives. Two computational methods, close reading and distant viewing, are the typical approaches used to analyze digitized art. Close reading focuses on specific visual aspects of one piece. Some tasks performed by machines in close reading methods include computational artist authentication and analysis of brushstrokes or texture properties. In contrast, through distant viewing methods, the similarity across an entire collection for a specific feature can be statistically visualized. Common tasks relating to this method include automatic classification, object detection, multimodal tasks, knowledge discovery in art history, and computational aesthetics. Whereas distant viewing includes the analysis of large collections, close reading involves one piece of artwork. Whilst 2D and 3D digital art is beneficial as it allows the preservation of history that would otherwise have been destroyed by events like natural disasters and war, there is the issue of who should own these 3D scans – i.e., who should own the digital copyrights. === Computer demos === Computer demos are based on computer programs, usually non-interactive. It produces audiovisual presentations. They are a novel form of art, which emerged as a consequence of the home computer revolution in the early 1980s. In the classification of digital art, they can be best described as real-time procedurally generated animated audio-visuals. This form of art does not concentrate only on the aesthetics of the final presentation, but also on the complexities and skills involved in creating the presentation. As such, it can be fully enjoyed only by persons with a relatively high knowledge level of relevant computer technologies. An example is that, as said by Hua Jin and Jie Yang, Using computer-aided design software to present the class content in art design teaching," is not to advocate computer-aided design instead of hand-drawn performance, but to make it serve the profession earlier through a more reasonable course arrangement." On the other hand, many of the created pieces of art are primarily aesthetic or amusing, and those can be enjoyed by the general public. === Digital installation art === Digital installation art constitutes a broad field of artistic practices and a variety of forms. Some resemble video installations, especially large-scale works involving projections and live video capture. By using projection techniques that enhance an audience's impression of sensory envelopment, many digital installations attempt to create immersive environments. While others go even further and attempt to facilitate a complete immersion in virtual realms. This type of installation is generally site-specific, scalable, and without fixed dimensionality, meaning it can be reconfigured to accommodate different presentation spaces. Scott Snibbe's "Boundary Functions" is an example of augmented reality digital installation art, which responds to people who enter the installation by drawing lines between people, indicating their personal space.Noah Wardrip-Fruin's "Screen"(2003) utilizes a Cave Automatic Virtual Environment (CAVE) to create an interactive, text-based digital experience that engages the viewer in a multi-sensory interaction. === Internet art and net.art === Internet art is digital art that uses the specific characteristics of the Internet and is exhibited on the Internet. The term "internet art" is included by "net art" for which artists assume that network will be refreshed through history. So the term "post-internet art" is used to exclude artworks outside of the internet media. A representative example is Protocols for Achievements, which is a digital photo frame that confronts the aestheti