Consciousness has been historically a heavily debated topic in engineering, science, and philosophy. On the contrary, awareness had less success in raising the interest of scholars in the past. However, things are changing as more and more researchers are getting interested in answering questions concerning what awareness is and how it can be artificially generated. The landscape is rapidly evolving, with multiple voices and interpretations of the concept being conceived and techniques being developed. The goal of this paper is to summarize and discuss the ones among these voices that are connected with projects funded by the EIC Pathfinder Challenge called "Awareness Inside", a nonrecurring call for proposals within Horizon Europe that was designed specifically for fostering research on natural and synthetic awareness. In this perspective, we dedicate special attention to challenges and promises of applying synthetic awareness in robotics, as the development of mature techniques in this new field is expected to have a special impact on generating more capable and trustworthy embodied systems.

What is the creative process through which an artist goes from an original image to a painting? Can we examine this process using techniques from computer vision and pattern recognition? Here we set the first preliminary steps to algorithmically deconstruct some of the transformations that an artist applies to an original image in order to establish centres of interest, which are focal areas of a painting that carry meaning. We introduce a comparative methodology that first cuts out the minimal segment from the original image on which the painting is based, then aligns the painting with this source, investigates micro-differences to identify centres of interest and attempts to understand their role. In this paper we focus exclusively on micro-differences with respect to edges. We believe that research into where and how artists create centres of interest in paintings is valuable for curators, art historians, viewers, and art educators, and might even help artists to understand and refine their own artistic method.

Reports on the 2017 AAAI Spring Symposium Series

It is also important to remember that having a very sharp distinction of AI A rise in real-world applications of AI has stimulated for social good research is not always feasible, and significant interest from the public, media, and policy often unnecessary. While there has been significant makers. Along with this increasing attention has progress, there still exist many major challenges facing come a media-fueled concern about purported negative the design of effective AIbased approaches to deal consequences of AI, which often overlooks the with the difficulties in real-world domains. One of the societal benefits that AI is delivering and can deliver challenges is interpretability since most algorithms for in the near future. To address these concerns, the AI for social good problems need to be used by human symposium on Artificial Intelligence for the Social end users. Second, the lack of access to valuable data Good (AISOC-17) highlighted the benefits that AI can that could be crucial to the development of appropriate bring to society right now. It brought together AI algorithms is yet another challenge. Third, the researchers and researchers, practitioners, experts, data that we get from the real world is often noisy and and policy makers from a wide variety of domains.

It reviews existing approaches such as inference structures, the distinction between deep and surface knowledge, problem-solving methods, and generic tasks. A new synthesis is put forward in the form of a componential framework that stresses modularity and an analysis of the pragmatic constraints on the task. The analysis of a rule from an existing expert system (the Dipmeter Advisor) is used to illustrate the framework.

It (McDermott 1988), and the idea of generic also helps to explicitly focus on how to go tasks and task-specific architectures (Chandrasekaran from the knowledge level to the symbol or 1983). These various proposals are program level. I call this in-between level the obviously related to each other, which makes knowledge-use level. At the knowledge-use it desirable to construct a synthesis that combines level, we focus on issues such as how the their strengths. Such a synthesis is presented overall task will be decomposed into manageable here in the form of a componential subtasks, what ordering will be imposed framework. The framework stresses modularity on the tasks, what kind of access to knowledge and consideration of the pragmatic constraints will be needed (and, consequently, what of the domain.