Curious about the best AI video generator? An AI video generator is software that uses machine learning to help you get more done — it combines speed, accuracy, and an interface that just works. Hands-on testing shows real-world results vary, so a short free trial is the smartest way to decide. Whether you are a beginner or a pro, the right AI video generator slots into your workflow and pays for itself fast. Read on for hands-on impressions, pricing tiers, and the standout features that matter.
Google Vids
Google Vids (not to be confused with Google Video) is an online timeline-based video editing application included as part of the Google Workspace suite. It is designed to help users create informational videos for work-related purposes. The app uses Google's Gemini technology to enable users to create video storyboards manually or with AI assistance using simple prompts. Features include uploading media, choosing stock videos, images, background music, and a voiceover feature with script generation using AI. The app is currently in testing with select Google Workspace Labs users. Like Kapwing and Capcut, Google Vids is primarily for creating work-related content like sales training, onboarding videos, vendor outreach, and project updates. It offers various styles and templates, collaborative features, and is not limited to videos without the short integration at the moment. Google Vids was announced on April 9, 2024. In September 2025, Google began to roll out a basic version of the application to Google Workspace users.
PANGU (software)
The PANGU (Planet and Asteroid Natural scene Generation Utility) is a computer graphics utility of which the development was funded by ESA and performed by University of Dundee. It generates scenes of planets, moons, asteroids, spacecraft and rovers. The main purpose of the tool is to test and validate navigation techniques based on the processing of images coming from on-board sensors, such as a camera or imaging LIDAR on a planetary lander.
Comparison of user features of messaging platforms
Comparison of user features of messaging platforms refers to a comparison of all the various user features of various electronic instant messaging platforms. This includes a wide variety of resources; it includes standalone apps, platforms within websites, computer software, and various internal functions available on specific devices, such as iMessage for iPhones. This entry includes only the features and functions that shape the user experience for such apps. A comparison of the underlying system components, programming aspects, and other internal technical information, is outside the scope of this entry. == Overview and background == Instant messaging technology is a type of online chat that offers real-time text transmission over the Internet. A LAN messenger operates in a similar way over a local area network. Short messages are typically transmitted between two parties when each user chooses to complete a thought and select "send". Some IM applications can use push technology to provide real-time text, which transmits messages character by character, as they are composed. More advanced instant messaging can add file transfer, clickable hyperlinks, Voice over IP, or video chat. Non-IM types of chat include multicast transmission, usually referred to as "chat rooms", where participants might be anonymous or might be previously known to each other (for example collaborators on a project that is using chat to facilitate communication). Instant messaging systems tend to facilitate connections between specified known users (often using a contact list also known as a "buddy list" or "friend list"). Depending on the IM protocol, the technical architecture can be peer-to-peer (direct point-to-point transmission) or client-server (an Instant message service center retransmits messages from the sender to the communication device). By 2010, instant messaging over the Web was in sharp decline, in favor of messaging features on social networks. The most popular IM platforms were terminated, such as AIM which closed down and Windows Live Messenger which merged into Skype. Instant messaging has since seen a revival in popularity in the form of "messaging apps" (usually on mobile devices) which by 2014 had more users than social networks. As of 2010, social networking providers often offer IM abilities. Facebook Chat is a form of instant messaging, and Twitter can be thought of as a Web 2.0 instant messaging system. Similar server-side chat features are part of most dating websites, such as OkCupid or PlentyofFish. The spread of smartphones and similar devices in the late 2000s also caused increased competition with conventional instant messaging, by making text messaging services still more ubiquitous. Many instant messaging services offer video calling features, voice over IP and web conferencing services. Web conferencing services can integrate both video calling and instant messaging abilities. Some instant messaging companies are also offering desktop sharing, IP radio, and IPTV to the voice and video features. The term "Instant Messenger" is a service mark of Time Warner and may not be used in software not affiliated with AOL in the United States. For this reason, in April 2007, the instant messaging client formerly named Gaim (or gaim) announced that they would be renamed "Pidgin". In the 2010s, more people started to use messaging apps on modern computers and devices like WhatsApp, WeChat, Viber, Facebook Messenger, Telegram, Signal and Line rather than instant messaging on computers like AIM and Windows Live Messenger. For example, WhatsApp was founded in 2009, and Facebook acquired in 2014, by which time it already had half a billion users. === Concepts === ==== Backchannel ==== Backchannel is the practice of using networked computers to maintain a real-time online conversation alongside the primary group activity or live spoken remarks. The term was coined in the field of linguistics to describe listeners' behaviours during verbal communication. (See Backchannel (linguistics).) The term "backchannel" generally refers to online conversation about the conference topic or speaker. Occasionally backchannel provides audience members a chance to fact-check the presentation. First growing in popularity at technology conferences, backchannel is increasingly a factor in education where WiFi connections and laptop computers allow participants to use ordinary chat like IRC or AIM to actively communicate during presentation. More recent research include works where the backchannel is brought publicly visible, such as the ClassCommons, backchan.nl and Fragmented Social Mirror. Twitter is also widely used today by audiences to create backchannels during broadcasting of content or at conferences. For example, television drama, other forms of entertainment and magazine programs. This practice is often also called live tweeting. Many conferences nowadays also have a hashtag that can be used by the participants to share notes and experiences; furthermore such hashtags can be user generated. == Features == Various platforms and apps are distinguished by their strengths and features in regards to specific functions. === Group messaging === === Official channels === Some apps include a feature known as "official channels" which allows companies, especially news media outlets, publications, and other mass media companies, to offer an official channel, which users can join, and thereby receive regular updates, published articles, or news updates from companies or news outlets. Two apps which have a large amount of such channels available are Line and Telegram. === Video group calls === == Basic default platforms == Basic platforms which are common across entire categories of mobile devices, computers, or operating systems. === SMS === SMS (short message service) is a text messaging service component of most telephone, Internet, and mobile device systems. It uses standardized communication protocols to enable mobile devices to exchange short text messages. An intermediary service can facilitate a text-to-voice conversion to be sent to landlines. SMS, as used on modern devices, originated from radio telegraphy in radio memo pagers that used standardized phone protocols. These were defined in 1985 as part of the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) series of standards. The first test SMS message was sent on December 3, 1992, when Neil Papwort, a test engineer for Sema Group, used a personal computer to send "Merry Christmas" to the phone of colleague Richard Jarvis. It commercially rolled out to many cellular networks that decade. SMS became hugely popular worldwide as a way of text communication. By the end of 2010, SMS was the most widely used data application, with an estimated 3.5 billion active users, or about 80% of all mobile phone subscribers. The protocols allowed users to send and receive messages of up to 160 characters (when entirely alpha-numeric) to and from GSM mobiles. Although most SMS messages are sent from one mobile phone to another, support for the service has expanded to include other mobile technologies, such as ANSI CDMA networks and Digital AMPS. Mobile marketing, a type of direct marketing, uses SMS. According to a 2018 market research report the global SMS messaging business was estimated to be worth over US$100 billion, accounting for almost 50 percent of all the revenue generated by mobile messaging. A Flash SMS is a type of SMS that appears directly on the main screen without user interaction and is not automatically stored in the inbox. It can be useful in emergencies, such as a fire alarm or cases of confidentiality, as in delivering one-time passwords. ==== Threaded SMS format ==== Threaded SMS is a visual styling orientation of SMS message history that arranges messages to and from a contact in chronological order on a single screen. It was first invented by a developer working to implement the SMS client for the BlackBerry, who was looking to make use of the blank screen left below the message on a device with a larger screen capable of displaying far more than the usual 160 characters, and was inspired by threaded Reply conversations in email. Visually, this style of representation provides a back-and-forth chat-like history for each individual contact. Hierarchical-threading at the conversation-level (as typical in blogs and on-line messaging boards) is not widely supported by SMS messaging clients. This limitation is due to the fact that there is no session identifier or subject-line passed back and forth between sent and received messages in the header data (as specified by SMS protocol) from which the client device can properly thread an incoming message to a specific dialogue, or even to a specific message within a dialogue. Most smart phone text-messaging-clients are able to create some contextual threading of "group messages" which narrows the context of the thread around the common interests shared by
Dailyhunt
Dailyhunt (formerly Newshunt) is an Indian content and news aggregator application based in Bangalore, India that provides local language content in 14 Indian languages from multiple content providers. Viru serves as Founder of Dailyhunt with Co-founder Umang Bedi. == History == Dailyhunt, earlier called Newshunt, was created as a Symbian app in 2009 by two ex-Nokia employees Umesh Kulkarni and Chandrashekhar Sohoni. Later in 2011, Newshunt became available on the Android platform. It was by that time that Virendra Gupta, founder of Verse acquired the application. Virendra Gupta, better known as Viru, had started Verse in 2007 as a value-added service (VAS) company. In 2011, he acquired Newshunt from its owners Umesh and Chandrashekhar. Umesh became the CTO and stayed on to oversee its transition towards the smartphone era. In 2015, Viru renamed Newshunt as Dailyhunt. In early 2018, Viru roped in Umang Bedi, to be the President of Dailyhunt and lead the business with him while focusing on making the benefits of the platform available to a larger audience. Umang was elevated to co-founder in 2020. == Funding == In September 2014, Dailyhunt (then known as Newshunt) closed its Series B funding of INR 1 billion ( or approx $12 million in 2014) from Sequoia Capital India. The Series C funding round was led by Falcon Capital and was closed with $40 million in February 2015. In October 2016, the company received its Series D funding of $25 million from ByteDance and a Series E funding of $6.39 million from Falcon Edge Capital in September 2018. Additionally, Dailyhunt raised $3 Mn (INR 21.75 Cr) in a Series F funding round from Stonebridge Capital in August 2019. Other investors of Dailyhunt include Matrix Partners India, Omidyar Network, Goldman Sachs and Sofina. == Tie-ups and partnerships == In January 2021, Dailyhunt partnered with Twitter to bring ‘Twitter Moments’ to the Indian social app. Dailyhunt app now has a dedicated tab called “Twitter Moments India” to showcase curated tweets pertaining to news and other events. In January 2021, Dailyhunt announced the premiere of Season 2 of the popular show QuoteUnquote with KK (Kapil Khandelwal) on the app. It was the first podcast to have been launched on the Dailyhunt app. In September 2020, Dailyhunt signed up as an Associate Sponsor with Star Sports for Dream 11 IPL 2020. In May 2020, Snapdeal partnered with Dailyhunt to add new content on marketplace. In March 2019, Discovery Communications India, the factual entertainment network, entered into a multi-year partnership with Dailyhunt to showcase short-form content.
List of large language models
A large language model (LLM) is a type of machine learning model designed for natural language processing tasks such as language generation. LLMs are language models with many parameters, and are trained with self-supervised learning on a vast amount of text. == List == For the training cost column, 1 petaFLOP-day equals 1 petaFLOP/sec × 1 day, or 8.64×1019 FLOP (floating point operations). Only the cost of the largest model is shown. The number of parameters is measured in billions, and the training cost is measured in petaFLOP-days. === 2018 === === 2019 === === 2020 === === 2021 === === 2022 === === 2023 === === 2024 === === 2025 === === 2026 ===
Pandemonium architecture
Pandemonium architecture is a theory in cognitive science that describes how visual images are processed by the brain. It has applications in artificial intelligence and pattern recognition. The theory was introduced by the artificial intelligence pioneer Oliver Selfridge in his 1959 paper "Pandemonium - A Paradigm for Learning". It describes the process of object recognition as the exchange of signals within a hierarchical system of detection and association, the elements of which Selfridge metaphorically termed "demons". This model is now recognized as the basis of visual perception in cognitive science. Pandemonium architecture arose in response to the inability of template matching theories to offer a biologically plausible explanation of the image constancy phenomenon. Contemporary researchers praise this architecture for its elegancy and creativity; that the idea of having multiple independent systems (e.g., feature detectors) working in parallel to address the image constancy phenomena of pattern recognition is powerful yet simple. The basic idea of the pandemonium architecture is that a pattern is first perceived in its parts before the "whole". Pandemonium architecture was one of the first computational models in pattern recognition. Although not perfect, the pandemonium architecture influenced the development of modern connectionist, artificial intelligence, and word recognition models. == History == Most research in perception has been focused on the visual system, investigating the mechanisms of how we see and understand objects. A critical function of our visual system is its ability to recognize patterns, but the mechanism by which this is achieved is unclear. The earliest theory that attempted to explain how we recognize patterns is the template matching model. According to this model, we compare all external stimuli against an internal mental representation. If there is "sufficient" overlap between the perceived stimulus and the internal representation, we will "recognize" the stimulus. Although some machines follow a template matching model (e.g., bank machines verifying signatures and accounting numbers), the theory is critically flawed in explaining the phenomena of image constancy: we can easily recognize a stimulus regardless of the changes in its form of presentation (e.g., T and T are both easily recognized as the letter T). It is highly unlikely that we have a stored template for all of the variations of every single pattern. As a result of the biological plausibility criticism of the template matching model, feature detection models began to rise. In a feature detection model, the image is first perceived in its basic individual elements before it is recognized as a whole object. For example, when we are presented with the letter A, we would first see a short horizontal line and two slanted long diagonal lines. Then we would combine the features to complete the perception of A. Each unique pattern consists of different combination of features, which means those that are formed with the same features will generate the same recognition. That is, regardless of how we rotate the letter A, is still perceived as the letter A. It is easy for this sort of architecture to account for the image constancy phenomena because you only need to "match" at the basic featural level, which is presumed to be limited and finite, thus biologically plausible. The best known feature detection model is called the pandemonium architecture. == Pandemonium architecture == The pandemonium architecture was originally developed by Oliver Selfridge in the late 1950s. The architecture is composed of different groups of "demons" working independently to process the visual stimulus. Each group of demons is assigned to a specific stage in recognition, and within each group, the demons work in parallel. There are four major groups of demons in the original architecture. The concept of feature demons, that there are specific neurons dedicated to perform specialized processing is supported by research in neuroscience. Hubel and Wiesel found there were specific cells in a cat's brain that responded to specific lengths and orientations of a line. Similar findings were discovered in frogs, octopuses and a variety of other animals. Octopuses were discovered to be only sensitive to verticality of lines, whereas frogs demonstrated a wider range of sensitivity. These animal experiments demonstrate that feature detectors seem to be a very primitive development. That is, it did not result from the higher cognitive development of humans. Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that the human brain possesses these elementary feature detectors as well. Moreover, this architecture is capable of learning, similar to a back-propagation styled neural network. The weight between the cognitive and feature demons can be adjusted in proportion to the difference between the correct pattern and the activation from the cognitive demons. To continue with our previous example, when we first learned the letter R, we know is composed of a curved, long straight, and a short angled line. Thus when we perceive those features, we perceive R. However, the letter P consists of very similar features, so during the beginning stages of learning, it is likely for this architecture to mistakenly identify R as P. But through constant exposure of confirming R's features to be identified as R, the weights of R's features to P are adjusted so the P response becomes inhibited (e.g., learning to inhibit the P response when a short angled line is detected). In principle, a pandemonium architecture can recognize any pattern. As mentioned earlier, this architecture makes error predictions based on the amount of overlapping features. Such as, the most likely error for R should be P. Thus, in order to show this architecture represents the human pattern recognition system we must put these predictions into test. Researchers have constructed scenarios where various letters are presented in situations that make them difficult to identify; then types of errors were observed, which was used to generate confusion matrices: where all of the errors for each letter are recorded. Generally, the results from these experiments matched the error predictions from the pandemonium architecture. Also as a result of these experiments, some researchers have proposed models that attempted to list all of the basic features in the Roman alphabet. == Criticism == A major criticism of the pandemonium architecture is that it adopts a completely bottom-up processing: recognition is entirely driven by the physical characteristics of the targeted stimulus. This means that it is unable to account for any top-down processing effects, such as context effects (e.g., pareidolia), where contextual cues can facilitate (e.g., word superiority effect: it is relatively easier to identify a letter when it is part of a word than in isolation) processing. However, this is not a fatal criticism to the overall architecture, because is relatively easy to add a group of contextual demons to work along with the cognitive demons to account for these context effects. Although the pandemonium architecture is built on the fact that it can account for the image constancy phenomena, some researchers have argued otherwise; and pointed out that the pandemonium architecture might share the same flaws from the template matching models. For example, the letter H is composed of 2 long vertical lines and a short horizontal line; but if we rotate the H 90 degrees in either direction, it is now composed of 2 long horizontal lines and a short vertical line. In order to recognize the rotated H as H, we would need a rotated H cognitive demon. Thus we might end up with a system that requires a large number of cognitive demons in order to produce accurate recognition, which would lead to the same biological plausibility criticism of the template matching models. However, it is rather difficult to judge the validity of this criticism because the pandemonium architecture does not specify how and what features are extracted from incoming sensory information, it simply outlines the possible stages of pattern recognition. But of course that raises its own questions, to which it is almost impossible to criticize such a model if it does not include specific parameters. Also, the theory appears to be rather incomplete without defining how and what features are extracted, which proves to be especially problematic with complex patterns (e.g., extracting the weight and features of a dog). Some researchers have also pointed out that the evidence supporting the pandemonium architecture has been very narrow in its methodology. Majority of the research that supports this architecture has often referred to its ability to recognize simple schematic drawings that are selected from a small finite set (e.g., letters in the Roman alphabet). Evidence from these types of exper