An agentic company research tool powered by LangGraph and Tavily that conducts deep diligence on companies using a multi-agent framework. It leverages Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash and OpenAI's GPT-5.1 on the backend for inference.

日本株の自律型リサーチAIエージェント｜AI agent for deep financial research on Japanese listed companies. Powered by EDINET DB + J-Quants.

An AI agent that automates company research and lead prospecting (powered by langgraph and firecrawl)

Automated Miulti AI Agent for company research with LangGraph— scrapes web data, extracts business insights, and generates structured reports using LLM analysis.

Multi-Agent AI System for Company Research

Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, p. 1. Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 55. Definition of AI as the study of intelligent agents: Poole, Mackworth & Goebel (1998), which provides the version that is used in this article. These authors use the term "computational intelligence" as a synonym for artificial intelligence.[1] Russell & Norvig (2003) (who prefer the term "rational agent") and write "The whole-agent view is now widely accepted in the field".[2] Nilsson 1998 Legg & Hutter 2007 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 2. McCorduck 2004, p. 204 Maloof, Mark. "Artificial Intelligence: An Introduction, p. 37" (PDF). georgetown.edu. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2018. "How AI Is Getting Groundbreaking Changes In Talent Management And HR Tech". Hackernoon. Archived from the original on 11 September 2019. Retrieved 14 February 2020. Schank, Roger C. (1991). "Where's the AI". AI magazine. Vol. 12 no. 4. p. 38. Russell & Norvig 2009. "AlphaGo – Google DeepMind". Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Allen, Gregory (April 2020). "Department of Defense Joint AI Center - Understanding AI Technology" (PDF). AI.mil - The official site of the Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 April 2020. Retrieved 25 April 2020. Optimism of early AI: * Herbert Simon quote: Simon 1965, p. 96 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. * Marvin Minsky quote: Minsky 1967, p. 2 quoted in Crevier 1993, p. 109. Boom of the 1980s: rise of expert systems, Fifth Generation Project, Alvey, MCC, SCI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 426–441 * Crevier 1993, pp. 161–162,197–203, 211, 240 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 24 * NRC 1999, pp. 210–211 * Newquist 1994, pp. 235–248 First AI Winter, Mansfield Amendment, Lighthill report * Crevier 1993, pp. 115–117 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 22 * NRC 1999, pp. 212–213 * Howe 1994 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 Second AI winter: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 430–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 209–210 * NRC 1999, pp. 214–216 * Newquist 1994, pp. 301–318 AI becomes hugely successful in the early 21st century * Clark 2015 Pamela McCorduck (2004, p. 424) writes of "the rough shattering of AI in subfields—vision, natural language, decision theory, genetic algorithms, robotics ... and these with own sub-subfield—that would hardly have anything to say to each other." This list of intelligent traits is based on the topics covered by the major AI textbooks, including: * Russell & Norvig 2003 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998 * Nilsson 1998 Kolata 1982. Maker 2006. Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general: Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3, who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering. McCorduck 2004, pp. 100–101, who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplished, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones." Kolata 1982, a paper in Science, which describes McCarthy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real".[19] McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence".[20]. Neats vs. scruffies: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 421–424, 486–489 * Crevier 1993, p. 168 * Nilsson 1983, pp. 10–11 Symbolic vs. sub-symbolic AI: * Nilsson (1998, p. 7), who uses the term "sub-symbolic". General intelligence (strong AI) is discussed in popular introductions to AI: * Kurzweil 1999 and Kurzweil 2005 See the Dartmouth proposal, under Philosophy, below. McCorduck 2004, p. 34. McCorduck 2004, p. xviii. McCorduck 2004, p. 3. McCorduck 2004, pp. 340–400. This is a central idea of Pamela McCorduck's Machines Who Think. She writes: "I like to think of artificial intelligence as the scientific apotheosis of a venerable cultural tradition."[26] "Artificial intelligence in one form or another is an idea that has pervaded Western intellectual history, a dream in urgent need of being realized."[27] "Our history is full of attempts—nutty, eerie, comical, earnest, legendary and real—to make artificial intelligences, to reproduce what is the essential us—bypassing the ordinary means. Back and forth between myth and reality, our imaginations supplying what our workshops couldn't, we have engaged for a long time in this odd form of self-reproduction."[28] She traces the desire back to its Hellenistic roots and calls it the urge to "forge the Gods."[29] "Stephen Hawking believes AI could be mankind's last accomplishment". BetaNews. 21 October 2016. Archived from the original on 28 August 2017. Lombardo P, Boehm I, Nairz K (2020). "RadioComics – Santa Claus and the future of radiology". Eur J Radiol. 122 (1): 108771. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.108771. PMID 31835078. Ford, Martin; Colvin, Geoff (6 September 2015). "Will robots create more jobs than they destroy?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 16 June 2018. Retrieved 13 January 2018. AI applications widely used behind the scenes: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 28 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 265 * NRC 1999, pp. 216–222 * Newquist 1994, pp. 189–201 AI in myth: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 4–5 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 939 AI in early science fiction. * McCorduck 2004, pp. 17–25 Formal reasoning: * Berlinski, David (2000). The Advent of the Algorithm. Harcourt Books. ISBN 978-0-15-601391-8. OCLC 46890682. Archived from the original on 26 July 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Turing, Alan (1948), "Machine Intelligence", in Copeland, B. Jack (ed.), The Essential Turing: The ideas that gave birth to the computer age, Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 412, ISBN 978-0-19-825080-7 Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 16. Dartmouth conference: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 111–136 * Crevier 1993, pp. 47–49, who writes "the conference is generally recognized as the official birthdate of the new science." * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who call the conference "the birth of artificial intelligence." * NRC 1999, pp. 200–201 McCarthy, John (1988). "Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Annals of the History of Computing. 10 (3): 224–229., collected in McCarthy, John (1996). "10. Review of The Question of Artificial Intelligence". Defending AI Research: A Collection of Essays and Reviews. CSLI., p. 73, "[O]ne of the reasons for inventing the term "artificial intelligence" was to escape association with "cybernetics". Its concentration on analog feedback seemed misguided, and I wished to avoid having either to accept Norbert (not Robert) Wiener as a guru or having to argue with him." Hegemony of the Dartmouth conference attendees: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 17, who write "for the next 20 years the field would be dominated by these people and their students." * McCorduck 2004, pp. 129–130 Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18. Schaeffer J. (2009) Didn't Samuel Solve That Game?. In: One Jump Ahead. Springer, Boston, MA Samuel, A. L. (July 1959). "Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers". IBM Journal of Research and Development. 3 (3): 210–229. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.368.2254. doi:10.1147/rd.33.0210. "Golden years" of AI (successful symbolic reasoning programs 1956–1973): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 243–252 * Crevier 1993, pp. 52–107 * Moravec 1988, p. 9 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 18–21 The programs described are Arthur Samuel's checkers program for the IBM 701, Daniel Bobrow's STUDENT, Newell and Simon's Logic Theorist and Terry Winograd's SHRDLU. DARPA pours money into undirected pure research into AI during the 1960s: * McCorduck 2004, p. 131 * Crevier 1993, pp. 51, 64–65 * NRC 1999, pp. 204–205 AI in England: * Howe 1994 Lighthill 1973. Expert systems: * ACM 1998, I.2.1 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–24 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–331 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 17.4 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 327–335, 434–435 * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–62, 197–203 * Newquist 1994, pp. 155–183 Mead, Carver A.; Ismail, Mohammed (8 May 1989). Analog VLSI Implementation of Neural Systems (PDF). The Kluwer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science. 80. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-1639-8. ISBN 978-1-4613-1639-8. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 24 January 2020. Formal methods are now preferred ("Victory of the neats"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 25–26 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 486–487 McCorduck 2004, pp. 480–483. Markoff 2011. "Ask the AI experts: What's driving today's progress in AI?". McKinsey & Company. Archived from the original on 13 April 2018. Retrieved 13 April 2018. Administrator. "Kinect's AI breakthrough explained". i-programmer.info. Archived from the original on 1 February 2016. Rowinski, Dan (15 January 2013). "Virtual Personal Assistants & The Future Of Your Smartphone [Infographic]". ReadWrite. Archived from the original on 22 December 2015. "Artificial intelligence: Google's AlphaGo beats Go master Lee Se-dol". BBC News. 12 March 2016. Archived from the original on 26 August 2016. Retrieved 1 October 2016. Metz, Cade (27 May 2017). "After Win in China, AlphaGo's Designers Explore New AI". Wired. Archived from the original on 2 June 2017. "World's Go Player Ratings". May 2017. Archived from the original on 1 April 2017. "柯洁迎19岁生日 雄踞人类世界排名第一已两年" (in Chinese). May 2017. Archived from the original on 11 August 2017. Clark, Jack (8 December 2015). "Why 2015 Was a Breakthrough Year in Artificial Intelligence". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 23 November 2016. Retrieved 23 November 2016. After a half-decade of quiet breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, 2015 has been a landmark year. Computers are smarter and learning faster than ever. "Reshaping Business With Artificial Intelligence". MIT Sloan Management Review. Archived from the original on 19 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Lorica, Ben (18 December 2017). "The state of AI adoption". O'Reilly Media. Archived from the original on 2 May 2018. Retrieved 2 May 2018. Allen, Gregory (6 February 2019). "Understanding China's AI Strategy". Center for a New American Security. Archived from the original on 17 March 2019. "Review | How two AI superpowers – the U.S. and China – battle for supremacy in the field". Washington Post. 2 November 2018. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018. at 10:11, Alistair Dabbs 22 Feb 2019. "Artificial Intelligence: You know it isn't real, yeah?". www.theregister.co.uk. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. "Stop Calling it Artificial Intelligence". Archived from the original on 2 December 2019. Retrieved 1 December 2019. "AI isn't taking over the world – it doesn't exist yet". GBG Global website. Archived from the original on 11 August 2020. Retrieved 22 August 2020. Kaplan, Andreas; Haenlein, Michael (1 January 2019). "Siri, Siri, in my hand: Who's the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence". Business Horizons. 62 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.004. Domingos 2015, Chapter 5. Domingos 2015, Chapter 7. Lindenbaum, M., Markovitch, S., & Rusakov, D. (2004). Selective sampling for nearest neighbor classifiers. Machine learning, 54(2), 125–152. Domingos 2015, Chapter 1. Intractability and efficiency and the combinatorial explosion: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 9, 21–22 Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 3. Hart, P. E.; Nilsson, N. J.; Raphael, B. (1972). "Correction to "A Formal Basis for the Heuristic Determination of Minimum Cost Paths"". SIGART Newsletter (37): 28–29. doi:10.1145/1056777.1056779. S2CID 6386648. Domingos 2015, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 6. "Can neural network computers learn from experience, and if so, could they ever become what we would call 'smart'?". Scientific American. 2018. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Domingos 2015, Chapter 6, Chapter 7. Domingos 2015, p. 286. "Single pixel change fools AI programs". BBC News. 3 November 2017. Archived from the original on 22 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. "AI Has a Hallucination Problem That's Proving Tough to Fix". WIRED. 2018. Archived from the original on 12 March 2018. Retrieved 12 March 2018. Matti, D.; Ekenel, H. K.; Thiran, J. P. (2017). Combining LiDAR space clustering and convolutional neural networks for pedestrian detection. 2017 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Video and Signal Based Surveillance (AVSS). pp. 1–6. arXiv:1710.06160. doi:10.1109/AVSS.2017.8078512. ISBN 978-1-5386-2939-0. S2CID 2401976. Ferguson, Sarah; Luders, Brandon; Grande, Robert C.; How, Jonathan P. (2015). Real-Time Predictive Modeling and Robust Avoidance of Pedestrians with Uncertain, Changing Intentions. Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics XI. Springer Tracts in Advanced Robotics. 107. Springer, Cham. pp. 161–177. arXiv:1405.5581. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-16595-0_10. ISBN 978-3-319-16594-3. S2CID 8681101. "Cultivating Common Sense | DiscoverMagazine.com". Discover Magazine. 2017. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Davis, Ernest; Marcus, Gary (24 August 2015). "Commonsense reasoning and commonsense knowledge in artificial intelligence". Communications of the ACM. 58 (9): 92–103. doi:10.1145/2701413. S2CID 13583137. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020. Winograd, Terry (January 1972). "Understanding natural language". Cognitive Psychology. 3 (1): 1–191. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(72)90002-3. "Don't worry: Autonomous cars aren't coming tomorrow (or next year)". Autoweek. 2016. Archived from the original on 25 March 2018. Retrieved 24 March 2018. Knight, Will (2017). "Boston may be famous for bad drivers, but it's the testing ground for a smarter self-driving car". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 22 August 2020. Retrieved 27 March 2018. Prakken, Henry (31 August 2017). "On the problem of making autonomous vehicles conform to traffic law". Artificial Intelligence and Law. 25 (3): 341–363. doi:10.1007/s10506-017-9210-0. Lieto, Antonio (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possible developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Problem solving, puzzle solving, game playing and deduction: * Russell & Norvig 2003, chpt. 3–9, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, chpt. 2,3,7,9, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, chpt. 3,4,6,8, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 7–12 Uncertain reasoning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 452–644, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 345–395, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 333–381, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 19 Psychological evidence of sub-symbolic reasoning: * Wason & Shapiro (1966) showed that people do poorly on completely abstract problems, but if the problem is restated to allow the use of intuitive social intelligence, performance dramatically improves. (See Wason selection task) * Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky (1982) have shown that people are terrible at elementary problems that involve uncertain reasoning. (See list of cognitive biases for several examples). * Lakoff & Núñez (2000) have controversially argued that even our skills at mathematics depend on knowledge and skills that come from "the body", i.e. sensorimotor and perceptual skills. (See Where Mathematics Comes From) Knowledge representation: * ACM 1998, I.2.4, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–363, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 23–46, 69–81, 169–196, 235–277, 281–298, 319–345, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 227–243, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18 Knowledge engineering: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 260–266, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 199–233, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. ≈17.1–17.4 Representing categories and relations: Semantic networks, description logics, inheritance (including frames and scripts): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 349–354, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 174–177, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 248–258, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.3 Representing events and time:Situation calculus, event calculus, fluent calculus (including solving the frame problem): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 328–341, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–298, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 18.2 Causal calculus: * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 335–337 Representing knowledge about knowledge: Belief calculus, modal logics: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 341–344, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 275–277 Sikos, Leslie F. (June 2017). Description Logics in Multimedia Reasoning. Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54066-5. ISBN 978-3-319-54066-5. S2CID 3180114. Archived from the original on 29 August 2017. Ontology: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 320–328 Smoliar, Stephen W.; Zhang, HongJiang (1994). "Content based video indexing and retrieval". IEEE Multimedia. 1 (2): 62–72. doi:10.1109/93.311653. S2CID 32710913. Neumann, Bernd; Möller, Ralf (January 2008). "On scene interpretation with description logics". Image and Vision Computing. 26 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1016/j.imavis.2007.08.013. Kuperman, G. J.; Reichley, R. M.; Bailey, T. C. (1 July 2006). "Using Commercial Knowledge Bases for Clinical Decision Support: Opportunities, Hurdles, and Recommendations". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 13 (4): 369–371. doi:10.1197/jamia.M2055. PMC 1513681. PMID 16622160. MCGARRY, KEN (1 December 2005). "A survey of interestingness measures for knowledge discovery". The Knowledge Engineering Review. 20 (1): 39–61. doi:10.1017/S0269888905000408. S2CID 14987656. Bertini, M; Del Bimbo, A; Torniai, C (2006). "Automatic annotation and semantic retrieval of video sequences using multimedia ontologies". MM '06 Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. 14th ACM international conference on Multimedia. Santa Barbara: ACM. pp. 679–682. Qualification problem: * McCarthy & Hayes 1969 * Russell & Norvig 2003[page needed] While McCarthy was primarily concerned with issues in the logical representation of actions, Russell & Norvig 2003 apply the term to the more general issue of default reasoning in the vast network of assumptions underlying all our commonsense knowledge. Default reasoning and default logic, non-monotonic logics, circumscription, closed world assumption, abduction (Poole et al. places abduction under "default reasoning". Luger et al. places this under "uncertain reasoning"): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 354–360, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 248–256, 323–335, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 335–363, * Nilsson 1998, ~18.3.3 Breadth of commonsense knowledge: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 21, * Crevier 1993, pp. 113–114, * Moravec 1988, p. 13, * Lenat & Guha 1989 (Introduction) Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986. Gladwell 2005. Expert knowledge as embodied intuition: * Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 (Hubert Dreyfus is a philosopher and critic of AI who was among the first to argue that most useful human knowledge was encoded sub-symbolically. See Dreyfus' critique of AI) * Gladwell 2005 (Gladwell's Blink is a popular introduction to sub-symbolic reasoning and knowledge.) * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 (Hawkins argues that sub-symbolic knowledge should be the primary focus of AI research.) Planning: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.8, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–459, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–316, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Information value theory: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 600–604 Classical planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 375–430, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 281–315, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 314–329, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 10.1–2, 22 Planning and acting in non-deterministic domains: conditional planning, execution monitoring, replanning and continuous planning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 430–449 Multi-agent planning and emergent behavior: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 449–455 Turing 1950. Solomonoff 1956. Alan Turing discussed the centrality of learning as early as 1950, in his classic paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence".[120] In 1956, at the original Dartmouth AI summer conference, Ray Solomonoff wrote a report on unsupervised probabilistic machine learning: "An Inductive Inference Machine".[121] This is a form of Tom Mitchell's widely quoted definition of machine learning: "A computer program is set to learn from an experience E with respect to some task T and some performance measure P if its performance on T as measured by P improves with experience E." Learning: * ACM 1998, I.2.6, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 649–788, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 397–438, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 385–542, * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 3.3, 10.3, 17.5, 20 Jordan, M. I.; Mitchell, T. M. (16 July 2015). "Machine learning: Trends, perspectives, and prospects". Science. 349 (6245): 255–260. Bibcode:2015Sci...349..255J. doi:10.1126/science.aaa8415. PMID 26185243. S2CID 677218. Reinforcement learning: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 763–788 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 442–449 Natural language processing: * ACM 1998, I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 790–831 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 91–104 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 591–632 "Versatile question answering systems: seeing in synthesis" Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine, Mittal et al., IJIIDS, 5(2), 119–142, 2011 Applications of natural language processing, including information retrieval (i.e. text mining) and machine translation: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 840–857, * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 623–630 Cambria, Erik; White, Bebo (May 2014). "Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article]". IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine. 9 (2): 48–57. doi:10.1109/MCI.2014.2307227. S2CID 206451986. Vincent, James (7 November 2019). "OpenAI has published the text-generating AI it said was too dangerous to share". The Verge. Archived from the original on 11 June 2020. Retrieved 11 June 2020. Machine perception: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 537–581, 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, ~chpt. 6 Speech recognition: * ACM 1998, ~I.2.7 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 568–578 Object recognition: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 885–892 Computer vision: * ACM 1998, I.2.10 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 863–898 * Nilsson 1998, chpt. 6 Robotics: * ACM 1998, I.2.9, * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 901–942, * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 443–460 Moving and configuration space: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 916–932 Tecuci 2012. Robotic mapping (localization, etc): * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 908–915 Cadena, Cesar; Carlone, Luca; Carrillo, Henry; Latif, Yasir; Scaramuzza, Davide; Neira, Jose; Reid, Ian; Leonard, John J. (December 2016). "Past, Present, and Future of Simultaneous Localization and Mapping: Toward the Robust-Perception Age". IEEE Transactions on Robotics. 32 (6): 1309–1332. arXiv:1606.05830. Bibcode:2016arXiv160605830C. doi:10.1109/TRO.2016.2624754. S2CID 2596787. Moravec, Hans (1988). Mind Children. Harvard University Press. p. 15. Chan, Szu Ping (15 November 2015). "This is what will happen when robots take over the world". Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018. "IKEA furniture and the limits of AI". The Economist. 2018. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Kismet. Thompson, Derek (2018). "What Jobs Will the Robots Take?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Scassellati, Brian (2002). "Theory of mind for a humanoid robot". Autonomous Robots. 12 (1): 13–24. doi:10.1023/A:1013298507114. S2CID 1979315. Cao, Yongcan; Yu, Wenwu; Ren, Wei; Chen, Guanrong (February 2013). "An Overview of Recent Progress in the Study of Distributed Multi-Agent Coordination". IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics. 9 (1): 427–438. arXiv:1207.3231. doi:10.1109/TII.2012.2219061. S2CID 9588126. Thro 1993. Edelson 1991. Tao & Tan 2005. Poria, Soujanya; Cambria, Erik; Bajpai, Rajiv; Hussain, Amir (September 2017). "A review of affective computing: From unimodal analysis to multimodal fusion". Information Fusion. 37: 98–125. doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.003. hdl:1893/25490. Emotion and affective computing: * Minsky 2006 Waddell, Kaveh (2018). "Chatbots Have Entered the Uncanny Valley". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 24 April 2018. Retrieved 24 April 2018. Pennachin, C.; Goertzel, B. (2007). Contemporary Approaches to Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence. Cognitive Technologies. Cognitive Technologies. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68677-4_1. ISBN 978-3-540-23733-4. Roberts, Jacob (2016). "Thinking Machines: The Search for Artificial Intelligence". Distillations. Vol. 2 no. 2. pp. 14–23. Archived from the original on 19 August 2018. Retrieved 20 March 2018. "The superhero of artificial intelligence: can this genius keep it in check?". the Guardian. 16 February 2016. Archived from the original on 23 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Mnih, Volodymyr; Kavukcuoglu, Koray; Silver, David; Rusu, Andrei A.; Veness, Joel; Bellemare, Marc G.; Graves, Alex; Riedmiller, Martin; Fidjeland, Andreas K.; Ostrovski, Georg; Petersen, Stig; Beattie, Charles; Sadik, Amir; Antonoglou, Ioannis; King, Helen; Kumaran, Dharshan; Wierstra, Daan; Legg, Shane; Hassabis, Demis (26 February 2015). "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning". Nature. 518 (7540): 529–533. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..529M. doi:10.1038/nature14236. PMID 25719670. S2CID 205242740. Sample, Ian (14 March 2017). "Google's DeepMind makes AI program that can learn like a human". the Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 April 2018. Retrieved 26 April 2018. "From not working to neural networking". The Economist. 2016. Archived from the original on 31 December 2016. Retrieved 26 April 2018. Domingos 2015. Artificial brain arguments: AI requires a simulation of the operation of the human brain * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 957 * Crevier 1993, pp. 271 and 279 A few of the people who make some form of the argument: * Moravec 1988 * Kurzweil 2005, p. 262 * Hawkins & Blakeslee 2005 The most extreme form of this argument (the brain replacement scenario) was put forward by Clark Glymour in the mid-1970s and was touched on by Zenon Pylyshyn and John Searle in 1980. Goertzel, Ben; Lian, Ruiting; Arel, Itamar; de Garis, Hugo; Chen, Shuo (December 2010). "A world survey of artificial brain projects, Part II: Biologically inspired cognitive architectures". Neurocomputing. 74 (1–3): 30–49. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2010.08.012. Nilsson 1983, p. 10. Nils Nilsson writes: "Simply put, there is wide disagreement in the field about what AI is all about."[163] AI's immediate precursors: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 51–107 * Crevier 1993, pp. 27–32 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 15, 940 * Moravec 1988, p. 3 Haugeland 1985, pp. 112–117 The most dramatic case of sub-symbolic AI being pushed into the background was the devastating critique of perceptrons by Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert in 1969. See History of AI, AI winter, or Frank Rosenblatt. Cognitive simulation, Newell and Simon, AI at CMU (then called Carnegie Tech): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 139–179, 245–250, 322–323 (EPAM) * Crevier 1993, pp. 145–149 Soar (history): * McCorduck 2004, pp. 450–451 * Crevier 1993, pp. 258–263 McCarthy and AI research at SAIL and SRI International: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 251–259 * Crevier 1993 AI research at Edinburgh and in France, birth of Prolog: * Crevier 1993, pp. 193–196 * Howe 1994 AI at MIT under Marvin Minsky in the 1960s : * McCorduck 2004, pp. 259–305 * Crevier 1993, pp. 83–102, 163–176 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 19 Cyc: * McCorduck 2004, p. 489, who calls it "a determinedly scruffy enterprise" * Crevier 1993, pp. 239–243 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 363−365 * Lenat & Guha 1989 Knowledge revolution: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 266–276, 298–300, 314, 421 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 22–23 Frederick, Hayes-Roth; William, Murray; Leonard, Adelman. "Expert systems". AccessScience. doi:10.1036/1097-8542.248550. Embodied approaches to AI: * McCorduck 2004, pp. 454–462 * Brooks 1990 * Moravec 1988 Weng et al. 2001. Lungarella et al. 2003. Asada et al. 2009. Oudeyer 2010. Revival of connectionism: * Crevier 1993, pp. 214–215 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 25 Computational intelligence * IEEE Computational Intelligence Society Archived 9 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine Hutson, Matthew (16 February 2018). "Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis". Science. pp. 725–726. Bibcode:2018Sci...359..725H. doi:10.1126/science.359.6377.725. Archived from the original on 29 April 2018. Retrieved 28 April 2018. Norvig 2012. Langley 2011. Katz 2012. The intelligent agent paradigm: * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972 * Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21 * Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240 * Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126 The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria. Agent architectures, hybrid intelligent systems: * Russell & Norvig (2003, pp. 27, 932, 970–972) * Nilsson (1998, chpt. 25) Hierarchical control system: * Albus 2002 Lieto, Antonio; Lebiere, Christian; Oltramari, Alessandro (May 2018). "The knowledge level in cognitive architectures: Current limitations and possibile developments". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 39–55. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.05.001. hdl:2318/1665207. S2CID 206868967. Lieto, Antonio; Bhatt, Mehul; Oltramari, Alessandro; Vernon, David (May 2018). "The role of cognitive architectures in general artificial intelligence". Cognitive Systems Research. 48: 1–3. doi:10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.08.003. hdl:2318/1665249. S2CID 36189683. Russell & Norvig 2009, p. 1. White Paper: On Artificial Intelligence - A European approach to excellence and trust (PDF). Brussels: European Commission. 2020. p. 1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 February 2020. Retrieved 20 February 2020. CNN 2006. Using AI to predict flight delays Archived 20 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Ishti.org. N. Aletras; D. Tsarapatsanis; D. Preotiuc-Pietro; V. Lampos (2016). "Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective". PeerJ Computer Science. 2: e93. doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.93. "The Economist Explains: Why firms are piling into artificial intelligence". The Economist. 31 March 2016. Archived from the original on 8 May 2016. Retrieved 19 May 2016. Lohr, Steve (28 February 2016). "The Promise of Artificial Intelligence Unfolds in Small Steps". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016. Frangoul, Anmar (14 June 2019). "A Californian business is using A.I. to change the way we think about energy storage". CNBC. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 5 November 2019. Wakefield, Jane (15 June 2016). "Social media 'outstrips TV' as news source for young people". BBC News. Archived from the original on 24 June 2016. Smith, Mark (22 July 2016). "So you think you chose to read this article?". BBC News. Archived from the original on 25 July 2016. Brown, Eileen. "Half of Americans do not believe deepfake news could target them online". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 6 November 2019. Retrieved 3 December 2019. The Turing test: Turing's original publication: * Turing 1950 Historical influence and philosophical implications: * Haugeland 1985, pp. 6–9 * Crevier 1993, p. 24 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 70–71 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 2–3 and 948 Dartmouth proposal: * McCarthy et al. 1955 (the original proposal) * Crevier 1993, p. 49 (historical significance) The physical symbol systems hypothesis: * Newell & Simon 1976, p. 116 * McCorduck 2004, p. 153 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 18 Dreyfus 1992, p. 156. Dreyfus criticized the necessary condition of the physical symbol system hypothesis, which he called the "psychological assumption": "The mind can be viewed as a device operating on bits of information according to formal rules."[206] Dreyfus' critique of artificial intelligence: * Dreyfus 1972, Dreyfus & Dreyfus 1986 * Crevier 1993, pp. 120–132 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 211–239 * Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 950–952, Gödel 1951: in this lecture, Kurt Gödel uses the incompleteness theorem to arrive at the following disjunction: (a) the human mind is not a consistent finite machine, or (b) there exist Diophantine equations for which it cannot decide whether solutions exist. Gödel finds (b) implausible, and thus seems to have believed the human mind was not equivalent to a finite machine, i.e., its power exceeded that of any finite machine. He recognized that this was only a conjecture, since one could never disprove (b). Yet he considered the disjunctive conclusion to be a "certain fact". The Mathematical Objection: * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 949 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 448–449 Making the Mathematical Objection: * Lucas 1961 * Penrose 1989 Refuting Mathematical Objection: * Turing 1950 under "(2) The Mathematical Objection" * Hofstadter 1979 Background: * Gödel 1931, Church 1936, Kleene 1935, Turing 1937 Graham Oppy (20 January 2015). "Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 27 April 2016. These Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments are, however, problematic, and there is wide consensus that they fail. Stuart J. Russell; Peter Norvig (2010). "26.1.2: Philosophical Foundations/Weak AI: Can Machines Act Intelligently?/The mathematical objection". Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-604259-4. even if we grant that computers have limitations on what they can prove, there is no evidence that humans are immune from those limitations. Mark Colyvan. An introduction to the philosophy of mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2012. From 2.2.2, 'Philosophical significance of Gödel's incompleteness results': "The accepted wisdom (with which I concur) is that the Lucas-Penrose arguments fail." Iphofen, Ron; Kritikos, Mihalis (3 January 2019). "Regulating artificial intelligence and robotics: ethics by design in a digital society". Contemporary Social Science: 1–15. doi:10.1080/21582041.2018.1563803. ISSN 2158-2041. "Ethical AI Learns Human Rights Framework". Voice of America. Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 10 November 2019. Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144. In the early 1970s, Kenneth Colby presented a version of Weizenbaum's ELIZA known as DOCTOR which he promoted as a serious therapeutic tool.[216] Joseph Weizenbaum's critique of AI: * Weizenbaum 1976 * Crevier 1993, pp. 132–144 * McCorduck 2004, pp. 356–373 * Russell & Norvig 2003, p. 961 Weizenbaum (the AI researcher who developed the first chatterbot program, ELIZA) argued in 1976 that the misuse of artificial intelligence has the potential to devalue human life. Wendell Wallach (2010). Moral Machines, Oxford University Press. Wallach, pp 37–54. Wallach, pp 55–73. Wallach, Introduction chapter. Michael Anderson and Susan Leigh Anderson (2011), Machine Ethics, Cambridge University Press. "Machine Ethics". aaai.org. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014. Rubin, Charles (Spring 2003). "Artificial Intelligence and Human Nature". The New Atlantis. 1: 88–100. Archived from the original on 11 June 2012. Brooks, Rodney (10 November 2014). "artificial intelligence is a tool, not a threat". Archived from the original on 12 November 2014. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial Intelligence". Observer. 19 August 2015. Archived from the original on 30 October 2015. Retrieved 30 October 2015. Chalmers, David (1995). "Facing up to the problem of consciousness". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2 (3): 200–219. Archived from the original on 8 March 2005. Retrieved 11 October 2018. See also this link Archived 8 April 2011 at the Wayback Machine Horst, Steven, (2005) "The Computational Theory of Mind" Archived 11 September 2018 at the Wayback Machine in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Searle 1980, p. 1. This version is from Searle (1999), and is also quoted in Dennett 1991, p. 435. Searle's original formulation was "The appropriately programmed computer really is a mind, in the sense that computers given the right programs can be literally said to understand and have other cognitive states." [230] Strong AI is defined similarly by Russell & Norvig (2003, p. 947): "The assertion that machines could possibly act intelligently

Custom research AI agent that analyzes IPOs, you just have to upload the DRHP and give the company name to the AI agent

Two zero-human AI companies battle for GitHub stars using Hermes Agent + Paperclip. Nous Research Hackathon 2026.

AI Agent which deep crawls a company website and generates a comprehensive PDF report.

A LangGraph-powered agent that finds and analyzes similar companies, leveraging Qdrant for data storage, Exa for research, and Gmail for report delivery. Performs comprehensive market analysis across 5 dimensions with 40+ comparison points per company.

2020 was a roller coaster of major, world-shaking events. We all couldn't wait for the year to end. But just as 2020 was about to close, it pulled another fast one on us: the SolarWinds hack, one of the biggest cybersecurity breaches of the 21st century. The SolarWinds hack was a major event not because a single company was breached, but because it triggered a much larger supply chain incident that affected thousands of organizations, including the U.S. government. What is SolarWinds? SolarWinds is a major software company based in Tulsa, Okla., which provides system management tools for network and infrastructure monitoring, and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organizations around the world. Among the company's products is an IT performance monitoring system called Orion. As an IT monitoring system, SolarWinds Orion has privileged access to IT systems to obtain log and system performance data. It is that privileged position and its wide deployment that made SolarWinds a lucrative and attractive target. What is the SolarWinds hack? The SolarWinds hack is the commonly used term to refer to the supply chain breach that involved the SolarWinds Orion system. In this hack, suspected nation-state hackers that have been identified as a group known as Nobelium by Microsoft -- and often simply referred to as the SolarWinds Hackers by other researchers -- gained access to the networks, systems and data of thousands of SolarWinds customers. The breadth of the hack is unprecedented and one of the largest, if not the largest, of its kind ever recorded. More than 30,000 public and private organizations -- including local, state and federal agencies -- use the Orion network management system to manage their IT resources. As a result, the hack compromised the data, networks and systems of thousands when SolarWinds inadvertently delivered the backdoor malware as an update to the Orion software. SolarWinds customers weren't the only ones affected. Because the hack exposed the inner workings of Orion users, the hackers could potentially gain access to the data and networks of their customers and partners as well -- enabling affected victims to grow exponentially from there. Orion Platform hack compromised networks of thousands of SolarWinds customers Hackers compromised a digitally signed SolarWinds Orion network monitoring component, opening a backdoor into the networks of thousands of SolarWinds government and enterprise customers. How did the SolarWinds hack happen? The hackers used a method known as a supply chain attack to insert malicious code into the Orion system. A supply chain attack works by targeting a third party with access to an organization's systems rather than trying to hack the networks directly. The third-party software, in this case the SolarWinds Orion Platform, creates a backdoor through which hackers can access and impersonate users and accounts of victim organizations. The malware could also access system files and blend in with legitimate SolarWinds activity without detection, even by antivirus software. SolarWinds was a perfect target for this kind of supply chain attack. Because their Orion software is used by many multinational companies and government agencies, all the hackers had to do was install the malicious code into a new batch of software distributed by SolarWinds as an update or patch. The SolarWinds hack timeline Here is a timeline of the SolarWinds hack: September 2019. Threat actors gain unauthorized access to SolarWinds network October 2019. Threat actors test initial code injection into Orion Feb. 20, 2020. Malicious code known as Sunburst injected into Orion March 26, 2020. SolarWinds unknowingly starts sending out Orion software updates with hacked code According to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security advisory, the affected versions of SolarWinds Orion are versions are 2019.4 through 2020.2.1 HF1. More than 18,000 SolarWinds customers installed the malicious updates, with the malware spreading undetected. Through this code, hackers accessed SolarWinds's customer information technology systems, which they could then use to install even more malware to spy on other companies and organizations. Who was affected? According to reports, the malware affected many companies and organizations. Even government departments such as Homeland Security, State, Commerce and Treasury were affected, as there was evidence that emails were missing from their systems. Private companies such as FireEye, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco and Deloitte also suffered from this attack. The breach was first detected by cybersecurity company FireEye. The company confirmed they had been infected with the malware when they saw the infection in customer systems. FireEye labeled the SolarWinds hack "UNC2452" and identified the backdoor used to gain access to its systems through SolarWinds as "Sunburst." Microsoft also confirmed that it found signs of the malware in its systems, as the breach was affecting its customers as well. Reports indicated Microsoft's own systems were being used to further the hacking attack, but Microsoft denied this claim to news agencies. Later, the company worked with FireEye and GoDaddy to block and isolate versions of Orion known to contain the malware to cut off hackers from customers' systems. They did so by turning the domain used by the backdoor malware used in Orion as part of the SolarWinds hack into a kill switch. The kill switch here served as a mechanism to prevent Sunburst from operating further. Nonetheless, even with the kill switch in place, the hack is still ongoing. Investigators have a lot of data to look through, as many companies using the Orion software aren't yet sure if they are free from the backdoor malware. It will take a long time before the full impact of the hack is known. Why did it take so long to detect the SolarWinds attack? With attackers having first gained access to the SolarWinds systems in September 2019 and the attack not being publicly discovered or reported until December 2020, attackers may well have had 14 or more months of unfettered access. The time it takes between when an attacker is able to gain access and the time an attack is actually discovered is often referred to as dwell time. According to a report released in January 2020 by security firm CrowdStrike, the average dwell time in 2019 was 95 days. Given that it took well over a year from the time the attackers first entered the SolarWinds network until the breach was discovered, the dwell time in the attack exceeded the average. The question of why it took so long to detect the SolarWinds attack has a lot to do with the sophistication of the Sunburst code and the hackers that executed the attack. "Analysis suggests that by managing the intrusion through multiple servers based in the United States and mimicking legitimate network traffic, the attackers were able to circumvent threat detection techniques employed by both SolarWinds, other private companies, and the federal government," SolarWinds said in its analysis of the attack. FireEye, which was the first firm to publicly report the attack, conducted its own analysis of the SolarWinds attack. In its report, FireEye described in detail the complex series of action that the attackers took to mask their tracks. Even before Sunburst attempts to connect out to its command-and-control server, the malware executes a number of checks to make sure no antimalware or forensic analysis tools are running. What was the purpose of the hack? The purpose of the hack remains largely unknown. Still, there are many reasons hackers would want to get into an organization's system, including having access to future product plans or employee and customer information held for ransom. It is also not yet clear what information, if any, hackers stole from government agencies. But the level of access appears to be deep and broad. There are speculations that many enterprises might be collateral damage, as the main focus of the attack was government agencies that make use of the SolarWinds IT management systems. Who was responsible for the hack? Federal investigators and cybersecurity agents believe a Russian espionage operation -- mostly likely Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service -- is behind the SolarWinds attack. The Russian government has denied any involvement in the attack, releasing a statement that said, "Malicious activities in the information space contradicts the principles of the Russian foreign policy, national interests and understanding of interstate relations." They also added that "Russia does not conduct offensive operations in the cyber domain." Contrary to experts in his administration, then-President Donald Trump hinted at around the time of the discovery of the SolarWinds hack that Chinese hackers might be behind the cybersecurity attack. However, he did not present any evidence to back up his claim. Shortly after his inauguration, President Joe Biden vowed that his administration intended to hold Russia accountable, through the launch of a full-scale intelligence assessment and review of the SolarWinds attack and those behind it. The president also created the position of deputy national security adviser for cybersecurity as part of the National Security Council. The role, held by veteran intelligence operative Anne Neuberger, is part of an overall bid by the Biden administration to refresh the federal government's approach to cybersecurity and better respond to nation-state actors. Naming the attack: What is Solorigate, Sunburst and Nobelium? The SolarWinds attack has a number of different names associated with it. While the attack is often referred to simply as the SolarWinds attack, that isn't the only name to know. Sunburst. This is the name of the actual malicious code injection that was planted by hackers into the SolarWinds Orion IT monitoring system code. Both SolarWinds and CrowdStrike generally refer to the attack as Sunburst. Solorigate. Microsoft initially dubbed the actual threat actor group behind the SolarWinds attack as Solorigate. It's a name that stuck and was adopted by other researchers as well as media. Nobelium. In March 2021, Microsoft decided that the primary designation for the threat actor behind the SolarWinds attack should actually be Nobelium -- the idea being that the group is active against multiple victims -- not just SolarWinds -- and uses more malware than just Sunburst. The China connection to the SolarWinds attack While it is suspected that the initial Sunburst code and the attack against SolarWinds and its users came from a threat actor based in Russia, other nation-state threat actors have also used SolarWinds in attacks. According to a Reuters report, suspected nation-state hackers based in China exploited SolarWinds during the same period of time the Sunburst attack occurred. The suspected China-based threat actors targeted the National Finance Center, which is a payroll agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is suspected that the China-based attackers did not use Sunburst, but rather a different malware that SolarWinds identifies as Supernova. Why is the SolarWinds hack important? The SolarWinds supply chain attack is a global hack, as threat actors turned the Orion software into a weapon gaining access to several government systems and thousands of private systems around the world. Due to the nature of the software -- and by extension the Sunburst malware -- having access to entire networks, many government and enterprise networks and systems face the risk of significant breaches. The hack could also be the catalyst for rapid, broad change in the cybersecurity industry. Many companies and government agencies are now in the process of devising new methods to react to these types of attacks before they happen. Governments and organizations are learning that it is not enough to build a firewall and hope it protects them. They have to actively seek out vulnerabilities in their systems, and either shore them up or turn them into traps against these types of attacks. Since the hack was discovered, SolarWinds has recommended customers update their existing Orion platform. The company has released patches for the malware and other potential vulnerabilities discovered since the initial Orion attack. SolarWinds also recommended customers not able to update Orion isolate SolarWinds servers and/or change passwords for accounts that have access to those servers. The greater White House cybersecurity focus will be crucial, some industry experts have said. But organizations should consider adopting modern software-as-a-service tools for monitoring and collaboration. While the cybersecurity industry has significantly advanced in the last decade, these kinds of attacks show that there is still a long way to go to get really secure systems. The Nobelium group continues to attack targets The suspected threat actor group behind the SolarWinds attack has remained active in 2021 and hasn't stopped at just targeting SolarWinds. On May 27, 2021, Microsoft reported that Nobelium, the group allegedly behind the SolarWinds attack, infiltrated software from email marketing service Constant Contact. According to Microsoft, Nobelium targeted approximately 3,000 email accounts at more than 150 different organizations. The initial attack vector appears to be an account used by USAID. From that initial foothold, Nobelium was able to send out phishing emails in an attempt to get victims to click on a link that would deploy a backdoor Trojan designed to steal user information.

No description available

Demonstration of using Pedantic AI for a little multi-agent research assistant, such as company due diligence and scholarly research

An AI-powered deep research system that discovers, enriches, and surfaces insights about companies. Agents run in the background to collect and enrich data, which is stored in Neon Serverless Postgres with vector embeddings for semantic search. A Next.js frontend surfaces the results.

No description available

ProwlA is an agentic job hunting assistant. Track applications, research companies with AI, and generate personalized cover letters and outreach emails. Features 28 MCP tools for seamless AI agent integration with Cursor, Claude Desktop, or your own agents.

Autonomous AI company plugin for Claude Code + OpenClaw. Deploys 9 specialized agents (CEO/CFO/CTO/Legal/Marketing/Sales/Research/Ops/Orchestrator) replacing $2.5M/year in executive thinking.

This project is a multi-agent system designed to conduct in-depth market research and generate AI/ML use cases for a target company within a specific industry. Using Google Generative AI, CrewAI, and Streamlit for an interactive user interface, this system enables quick, automated research and report generation through specialized agents.

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are expected to dramatically redefine the future of transportation. However, there are still significant engineering challenges to be solved before one can fully realize the benefits of self-driving cars. One such challenge is building models that reliably predict the movement of traffic agents around the AV, such as cars, cyclists, and pedestrians. The ridesharing company Lyft started Level 5 to take on the self-driving challenge and build a full self-driving system (they’re hiring!). Their previous competition tasked participants with identifying 3D objects, an important step prior to detecting their movement. Now, they’re challenging you to predict the motion of these traffic agents. In this competition, you’ll apply your data science skills to build motion prediction models for self-driving vehicles. You'll have access to the largest Prediction Dataset ever released to train and test your models. Your knowledge of machine learning will then be required to predict how cars, cyclists,and pedestrians move in the AV's environment. Lyft’s mission is to improve people’s lives with the world’s best transportation. They believe in a future where self-driving cars make transportation safer, environment-friendly and more accessible for everyone. Their goal is to accelerate development across the industry by sharing data with researchers. As a result of your participation, you can have a hand in propelling the industry forward and helping people around the world benefit from self-driving cars sooner. This is a Code Competition. Refer to Code Requirements for

Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Platform Development-Digikolma What is Hybrid Plan In the case of Hybrid mlm software, you can implement MLM Binary plan and unilevel or some other plans together to give more incentive to agents, also sponsors can achieve the monthly qualifying volume with the help of total organizational volume or with the help of volume within a specific number of levels. Sales leaders can surplus the income from them due to more number of income from hybrid mlm plan. They never have to replace the volume in a Breakaway( means power carry forward). The Percentages for the Hybrid Uni Levels are given in the downline of personal volumes. With the help of a Hybrid Unilevel Plan, those who are in the downline will make a higher than the average percentage commission for the people they sponsor. Hybrid MLM Plan Software The Hybrid plan software is similar to binary compensations plan as it also has two legs (Organizations). Each sponsor has two existing distributors down line to him. They will get the percentage commission according to the profit of multi level marketing company. Hybrid plan software mostly adapt the properties of two business plan. This includes Unilevel business plan and binary business plan or any other 2 plans. It is mostly a combination of two business compensation plan. It completely works on the concept of this two business compensation plan which is crucial for both multi level marketing companies as well as the members of the business organization. Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Development Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Development is the process of building an MLM platform powered with error-free blockchain smart contracts on both TRON and Ethereum blockchain networks. These hybrid smart contract MLM platforms allow users to earn both ETH and TRX on a single MLM platform. Hybrid Smart Contract MLM is more likely invited by both users and business people as it combines the functions of both Ethereum smart contract MLM and Tron smart contract MLM on a single platform. Develop your own Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Platform now with Digikolma Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Platform Development Services which includes hybrid smart contract MLM software. Smart Contract MLM Development Smart Contract based MLM platforms gained huge attention among the people of the world and made heavy ROI even in these difficult times. Platforms like Forsage, Lion's share, Million Money, etc have been a major choice for people to earn ETH, TRX, etc as a passive income. Maybe a business individual went a step ahead and started their own smart contract-based MLM platforms like forage,supersage,etc. Advantages of Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Business 1.From the User Perspective. 2.Built using both TRON and Ethereum Blockchain Technology. 3.Allows to earn both TRX and ETH. 4.Resistive to hacks and fraudulence activities. 5.Cent percent decentralized platform. 6.Ultra-fast transaction and payment processing. 7.No boundaries for using the platform. How to launch Your Own Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Platform? The simplest and easiest way to launch your own hybrid smart contract MLM platform is through hybrid smart contract MLM software or hybrid smart contract MLM script which is developed and deployed with the best compensation matrix plan and all the necessary features to attract crypto users to the platform. You can contact the best smart contract MLM development company who can assist you with the unique hybrid smart contract MLM software deployed with both Tron smart contract MLM and Ethereum smart contract MLM on a single software package. Both Ethereum and TRON smart contract MLM platforms are making better revenue and users each day, starting your own MLM Platform powered with both TRON smart contract and Ethereum Smart Contract can help you grab more users and return over in very little time with very less effort. You don’t have to do any more research and browse for the best hybrid smart contract MLM software provider.Our Experts develop and deploy the MLM smart Contracts on various blockchain networks such as Ethereum, TRON, etc and do proper auditing of smart contracts for better performance of smart contracts after the launch of the MLM platform. We are already in the mission of providing Ethereum Smart Contract MLM software as well as TRON Smart Contract MLM software for our clients. We now provide Hybrid Smart Contract MLM software which is the combination of both TRON smart contract and Ethereum Smart Contract in a single platform that lets you launch your own Hybrid Smart Contract MLM platform through which users can earn both TRX and ETH.We make your requirements first priority and carry out the development process with a matrix plan, compensation rewards, joining fees, and all other aspects of the MLM platform as per your wish and requirements. Basic Features of Our Hybrid Smart Contract MLM Software • Inherits both TRON and Ethereum Smart Contracts. • Customization of fees, rewards, or any other features. • Platform friendly supports for login on a desktop or mobile phones. • Any type of matrix plan or any mlm binary plan or any custmized mlm plan can be included. Thanks for reading our content.To know more about our Services, kindly Visit our Website: Digikolma http://digikolma.com/ #31 BVR Nagar Alwarthirunagar,Chennai digikolma.com@gmail.com phone.no : +91- 6385108373

No description available

An agentic company research tool powered by watsonx Granite and Tavily that conducts deep diligence on companies using a multi-agent framework.

Agentic system built with LangGraph, LangChain, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Tavily API, FPDF & Streamlit — automates deep company research, performs intelligent web crawling, and generates structured PDF reports with citations and zero manual effort.

An end-to-end, multi-agent Streamlit app that automates B2B outreach using GPT-5 and Exa. It discovers relevant companies, finds the right contacts (Founder's Office, GTM/Sales leadership, Partnerships/BD, Product Marketing), researches website + Reddit insights, and drafts tailored emails in your selected style.

No description available

AI Agent that researches about a company and returns summarized detailed information

Multi-agent architecture (Company Finder, Contact Finder, Research Agent, and Email Writer) to automate end-to-end B2B outreach

🦞 Autonomous AI job hunting agent — profile building, job search, company research, resume/cover letter generation, and automated application submission. Built on OpenClaw.

A modular, AI-driven research and reporting framework built on Crew.ai. Define agents and tasks via simple YAML configs, then spin up a “crew” of LLM-powered specialists to research, analyze, and generate professional reports on any company or topic.

AutoGraham is a Streamlit equity research app that combines AI-agent workflows with deterministic valuation models. It researches a company, extracts structured facts, selects the right valuation approach, estimates assumptions, and runs auditable DCF, DDM, or RIM calculations in Python to produce explainable investment analysis.