End-to-end encryption (E2EE) is a method of implementing a secure communication system where only the sender and intended recipient can read the messages. No one else, including the system provider, telecom providers, Internet providers or malicious actors, can access the cryptographic keys needed to read or send messages. End-to-end encryption prevents data from being read or secretly modified, except by the sender and intended recipients. In many applications, messages are relayed from a sender to some recipients by a service provider. In an E2EE-enabled service, messages are encrypted on the sender's device such that no third party, including the service provider, has the means to decrypt them. The recipients retrieve encrypted messages and decrypt them independently on their own devices. Since third parties cannot decrypt the data being communicated or stored, services with E2EE are better at protecting user data from data breaches and espionage. Computer security experts, digital freedom organizations, and human rights activists advocate for the use of E2EE due to its security and privacy benefits, including its ability to resist mass surveillance. Popular messaging apps like WhatsApp, iMessage, Facebook Messenger, and Signal use end-to-end encryption for chat messages, with some also supporting E2EE of voice and video calls. As of May 2025, WhatsApp is the most widely used E2EE messaging service, with over 3 billion users. Meanwhile, Signal with an estimated 70 million users, is regarded as the current gold standard in secure messaging by cryptographers, protestors, and journalists. Since end-to-end encrypted services cannot offer decrypted messages in response to government requests, the proliferation of E2EE has been met with controversy. Around the world, governments, law enforcement agencies, and child protection groups have expressed concerns over its impact on criminal investigations. As of 2025, some governments have successfully passed legislation targeting E2EE, such as Australia's Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Act (2018) and the Online Safety Act (2023) in the UK. Other attempts at restricting E2EE include the EARN IT Act in the US and the Child Sexual Abuse Regulation in the EU.[1] Nevertheless, some government bodies such as the UK's Information Commissioner's Office and the US's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have argued for the use of E2EE, with Jeff Greene of the CISA advising that "encryption is your friend" following the discovery of the Salt Typhoon espionage campaign in 2024. == Definitions == End-to-end encryption is a means of ensuring the security of communications in applications like secure messaging. Under E2EE, messages are encrypted on the sender's device such that they can be decoded only by the final recipient's device. In many non-E2EE messaging systems, including email and many chat platforms, messages pass through intermediaries and are stored by a third party service provider, from which they are retrieved by the recipient. Even if messages are encrypted, they are only encrypted 'in transit', and are thus accessible by the service provider. Server-side disk encryption is also distinct from E2EE because it does not prevent the service provider from viewing the information, as they have the encryption keys and can simply decrypt it. The term "end-to-end encryption" originally only meant that the communication is never decrypted during its transport from the sender to the receiver. For example, around 2003, E2EE was proposed as an additional layer of encryption for GSM or TETRA, in addition to the existing radio encryption protecting the communication between the mobile device and the network infrastructure. This has been standardized by SFPG for TETRA. Note that in TETRA, the keys are generated by a Key Management Centre (KMC) or a Key Management Facility (KMF), not by the communicating users. Later, around 2014, the meaning of "end-to-end encryption" started to evolve when WhatsApp encrypted a portion of its network, requiring that not only the communication stays encrypted during transport, but also that the provider of the communication service is not able to decrypt the communications—maliciously or when requested by law enforcement agencies. Similarly, messages must be undecryptable in transit by attackers through man-in-the-middle attacks. This new meaning is now the widely accepted one. == Motivations == The lack of end-to-end encryption can allow service providers to easily provide search and other features, or to scan for illegal and unacceptable content. However, it also means that content can be read by anyone who has access to the data stored by the service provider, by design or via a backdoor. This can be a concern in many cases where privacy is important, such as in governmental and military communications, financial transactions, and when sensitive information such as health and biometric data are sent. If this content were shared without E2EE, a malicious actor or adversarial government could obtain it through unauthorized access or subpoenas targeted at the service provider. E2EE alone does not guarantee privacy or security. For example, the data may be held unencrypted on the user's own device or accessed through their own app if their credentials are compromised. == Modern implementations == === Messaging === In May 2026, Meta ended support for end-to-end encryption (E2EE) on Instagram, reversing a previous commitment to expand the technology across its messaging services. The company justified the move as a measure to mitigate fraudulent activity and facilitate the detection of harmful content. The decision highlighted a conflict between digital privacy and online safety; while child protection organizations supported the change to better identify predatory behavior, privacy advocates argued that removing E2EE compromises user security. As of 2025, messaging apps like Signal and WhatsApp are designed to exclusively use end-to-end encryption. Both Signal and WhatsApp use the Signal Protocol. Other messaging apps and protocols that support end-to-end encryption include Facebook Messenger, iMessage, Telegram, Matrix, and Keybase. Although Telegram supports end-to-end encryption, it has been criticized for not enabling it by default, instead supporting E2EE through opt-in "secret chats". As of 2020, Telegram did not support E2EE for group chats and no E2EE on its desktop clients. In 2022, after controversy over the use of Facebook Messenger messages in an abortion lawsuit in Nebraska, Facebook added support for end-to-end encryption in the Messenger app. Writing for Wired, technologist Albert Fox Cahn criticized Messenger's approach to end-to-end encryption, which required the user to opt into E2EE for each conversation and split the message thread into two chats which were easy for users to confuse. In December 2023, Facebook announced plans to enable end-to-end encryption by default despite pressure from British law enforcement agencies. As of 2016, many server-based communications systems did not include end-to-end encryption. These systems can only guarantee the protection of communications between clients and servers, meaning that users have to trust the third parties who are running the servers with the sensitive content. End-to-end encryption is regarded as safer because it reduces the number of parties who might be able to interfere or break the encryption. In the case of instant messaging, users may use a third-party client or plugin to implement an end-to-end encryption scheme over an otherwise non-E2EE protocol. === Audio and video conferencing === Signal and WhatsApp use end-to-end encryption for audio and video calls. Since 2020, Signal has also supported end-to-encrypted video calls. In 2024, Discord added end-to-end encryption for audio and video calls, voice channels, and certain live streams. However, they had no plans to implement E2EE for messages. In 2020, after acquiring Keybase, Zoom announced end-to-end encryption would be limited to paid accounts. Following criticism from human rights advocates, Zoom extended the feature to all users with accounts. In 2021, Zoom settled an $85M class action lawsuit over past misrepresentation about end-to-end encryption. The FTC confirmed Zoom previously retained access to meeting keys. === Other uses === Some encrypted backup and file sharing services provide client-side encryption. Nextcloud and MEGA, offer end-to-end encryption of shared files. The term "end-to-end encryption" is sometimes incorrectly used to describe client-side encryption. Some non-E2EE systems, such as Lavabit and Hushmail, have described themselves as offering "end-to-end" encryption when they did not. == Law enforcement and regulation == In 2022, Facebook Messenger came under scrutiny because the messages between a mother and daughter in Nebraska were used to seek criminal charges in an abortion-rel
Description logic
Description logics (DL) are a family of formal knowledge representation languages. Many DLs are more expressive than propositional logic but less expressive than first-order logic. In contrast to the latter, the core reasoning problems for DLs are (usually) decidable, and efficient decision procedures have been designed and implemented for these problems. There are general, spatial, temporal, spatiotemporal, and fuzzy description logics, and each description logic features a different balance between expressive power and reasoning complexity by supporting different sets of mathematical constructors. DLs are used in artificial intelligence to describe and reason about the relevant concepts of an application domain (known as terminological knowledge). It is of particular importance in providing a logical formalism for ontologies and the Semantic Web: the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and its profiles are based on DLs. A major area of application of DLs and OWL is in biomedical informatics, where they assist in the codification of biomedical knowledge. DLs and OWL are also applied in other domains, including defense, climate modeling, and large-scale industrial knowledge graphs. == Introduction == A DL models concepts, roles and individuals, and their relationships. The fundamental modeling concept of a DL is the axiom—a logical statement relating roles and/or concepts. This is a key difference from the frames paradigm where a frame specification declares and completely defines a class. == Nomenclature == === Terminology compared to FOL and OWL === The description logic community uses different terminology than the first-order logic (FOL) community for operationally equivalent notions; some examples are given below. The Web Ontology Language (OWL) uses again a different terminology, also given in the table below. === Naming convention === There are many varieties of description logics and there is an informal naming convention, roughly describing the operators allowed. The expressivity is encoded in the label for a logic starting with one of the following basic logics: Followed by any of the following extensions: ==== Exceptions ==== Some canonical DLs that do not exactly fit this convention are: ==== Examples ==== As an example, A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is a centrally important description logic from which comparisons with other varieties can be made. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is simply A L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {AL}}} with complement of any concept allowed, not just atomic concepts. A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} is used instead of the equivalent A L U E {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALUE}}} . A further example, the description logic S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} is the logic A L C {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALC}}} plus extended cardinality restrictions, and transitive and inverse roles. The naming conventions aren't purely systematic so that the logic A L C O I N {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCOIN}}} might be referred to as A L C N I O {\displaystyle {\mathcal {ALCNIO}}} and other abbreviations are also made where possible. The Protégé ontology editor supports S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Three major biomedical informatics terminology bases, SNOMED CT, GALEN, and GO, are expressible in E L {\displaystyle {\mathcal {EL}}} (with additional role properties). OWL 2 provides the expressiveness of S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , OWL-DL is based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} , and for OWL-Lite it is S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . == History == Description logic was given its current name in the 1980s. Previous to this it was called (chronologically): terminological systems, and concept languages. === Knowledge representation === Frames and semantic networks lack formal (logic-based) semantics. DL was first introduced into knowledge representation (KR) systems to overcome this deficiency. The first DL-based KR system was KL-ONE (by Ronald J. Brachman and Schmolze, 1985). During the '80s other DL-based systems using structural subsumption algorithms were developed including KRYPTON (1983), LOOM (1987), BACK (1988), K-REP (1991) and CLASSIC (1991). This approach featured DL with limited expressiveness but relatively efficient (polynomial time) reasoning. In the early '90s, the introduction of a new tableau based algorithm paradigm allowed efficient reasoning on more expressive DL. DL-based systems using these algorithms — such as KRIS (1991) — show acceptable reasoning performance on typical inference problems even though the worst case complexity is no longer polynomial. From the mid '90s, reasoners were created with good practical performance on very expressive DL with high worst case complexity. Examples from this period include FaCT, RACER (2001), CEL (2005), and KAON 2 (2005). DL reasoners, such as FaCT, FaCT++, RACER, DLP and Pellet, implement the method of analytic tableaux. KAON2 is implemented by algorithms which reduce a SHIQ(D) knowledge base to a disjunctive datalog program. === Semantic web === The DARPA Agent Markup Language (DAML) and Ontology Inference Layer (OIL) ontology languages for the Semantic Web can be viewed as syntactic variants of DL. In particular, the formal semantics and reasoning in OIL use the S H I Q {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIQ}}} DL. The DAML+OIL DL was developed as a submission to—and formed the starting point of—the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Ontology Working Group. In 2004, the Web Ontology Working Group completed its work by issuing the OWL recommendation. The design of OWL is based on the S H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SH}}} family of DL with OWL DL and OWL Lite based on S H O I N ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHOIN}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} and S H I F ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SHIF}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} respectively. The W3C OWL Working Group began work in 2007 on a refinement of - and extension to - OWL. In 2009, this was completed by the issuance of the OWL2 recommendation. OWL2 is based on the description logic S R O I Q ( D ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {SROIQ}}^{\mathcal {(D)}}} . Practical experience demonstrated that OWL DL lacked several key features necessary to model complex domains. == Modeling == === TBox vs Abox === In DL, a distinction is drawn between the so-called TBox (terminological box) and the ABox (assertional box). In general, the TBox contains sentences describing concept hierarchies (i.e., relations between concepts) while the ABox contains ground sentences stating where in the hierarchy, individuals belong (i.e., relations between individuals and concepts). For example, the statement: belongs in the TBox, while the statement: belongs in the ABox. Note that the TBox/ABox distinction is not significant, in the same sense that the two "kinds" of sentences are not treated differently in first-order logic (which subsumes most DL). When translated into first-order logic, a subsumption axiom like (1) is simply a conditional restriction to unary predicates (concepts) with only variables appearing in it. Clearly, a sentence of this form is not privileged or special over sentences in which only constants ("grounded" values) appear like (2). === Motivation for having Tbox and Abox === So why was the distinction introduced? The primary reason is that the separation can be useful when describing and formulating decision-procedures for various DL. For example, a reasoner might process the TBox and ABox separately, in part because certain key inference problems are tied to one but not the other one ('classification' is related to the TBox, 'instance checking' to the ABox). Another example is that the complexity of the TBox can greatly affect the performance of a given decision-procedure for a certain DL, independently of the ABox. Thus, it is useful to have a way to talk about that specific part of the knowledge base. The secondary reason is that the distinction can make sense from the knowledge base modeler's perspective. It is plausible to distinguish between our conception of terms/concepts in the world (class axioms in the TBox) and particular manifestations of those terms/concepts (instance assertions in the ABox). In the above example: when the hierarchy within a company is the same in every branch but the assignment to employees is different in every department (because there are other people working there), it makes sense to reuse the TBox for different branches that do not use the same ABox. There are two features of description logic that are not shared by most other data description formalisms: DL does not make the unique name assumption (UNA) or the closed-world assumption (CWA). Not having UNA means that two concepts with different names may be allowed by some inference to be shown to be equivalent. Not having CWA, or rather having the open world assumption (OWA) means that
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference
Solomonoff's theory of inductive inference proves that, under its common sense assumptions (axioms), the best possible scientific model is the shortest algorithm that generates the empirical data under consideration. In addition to the choice of data, other assumptions are that, to avoid the post-hoc fallacy, the programming language must be chosen prior to the data and that the environment being observed is generated by an unknown algorithm. This is also called a theory of induction. Due to its basis in the dynamical (state-space model) character of Algorithmic Information Theory, it encompasses statistical as well as dynamical information criteria for model selection. It was introduced by Ray Solomonoff, based on probability theory and theoretical computer science. In essence, Solomonoff's induction derives the posterior probability of any computable theory, given a sequence of observed data. This posterior probability is derived from Bayes' rule and some universal prior, that is, a prior that assigns a positive probability to any computable theory. Solomonoff proved that this induction is incomputable (or more precisely, lower semi-computable), but noted that "this incomputability is of a very benign kind", and that it "in no way inhibits its use for practical prediction" (as it can be approximated from below more accurately with more computational resources). It is only "incomputable" in the benign sense that no scientific consensus is able to prove that the best current scientific theory is the best of all possible theories. However, Solomonoff's theory does provide an objective criterion for deciding among the current scientific theories explaining a given set of observations. Solomonoff's induction naturally formalizes Occam's razor by assigning larger prior credences to theories that require a shorter algorithmic description. == Origin == === Philosophical === The theory is based in philosophical foundations, and was founded by Ray Solomonoff around 1960. It is a mathematically formalized combination of Occam's razor and the Principle of Multiple Explanations. All computable theories which perfectly describe previous observations are used to calculate the probability of the next observation, with more weight put on the shorter computable theories. Marcus Hutter's universal artificial intelligence builds upon this to calculate the expected value of an action. === Principle === Solomonoff's induction has been argued to be the computational formalization of pure Bayesianism. To understand, recall that Bayesianism derives the posterior probability P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} of a theory T {\displaystyle T} given data D {\displaystyle D} by applying Bayes rule, which yields P [ T | D ] = P [ D | T ] P [ T ] P [ D | T ] P [ T ] + ∑ A ≠ T P [ D | A ] P [ A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]={\frac {\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]}{\mathbb {P} [D|T]\mathbb {P} [T]+\sum _{A\neq T}\mathbb {P} [D|A]\mathbb {P} [A]}}} where theories A {\displaystyle A} are alternatives to theory T {\displaystyle T} . For this equation to make sense, the quantities P [ D | T ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|T]} and P [ D | A ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [D|A]} must be well-defined for all theories T {\displaystyle T} and A {\displaystyle A} . In other words, any theory must define a probability distribution over observable data D {\displaystyle D} . Solomonoff's induction essentially boils down to demanding that all such probability distributions be computable. Interestingly, the set of computable probability distributions is a subset of the set of all programs, which is countable. Similarly, the sets of observable data considered by Solomonoff were finite. Without loss of generality, we can thus consider that any observable data is a finite bit string. As a result, Solomonoff's induction can be defined by only invoking discrete probability distributions. Solomonoff's induction then allows to make probabilistic predictions of future data F {\displaystyle F} , by simply obeying the laws of probability. Namely, we have P [ F | D ] = E T [ P [ F | T , D ] ] = ∑ T P [ F | T , D ] P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|D]=\mathbb {E} _{T}[\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]]=\sum _{T}\mathbb {P} [F|T,D]\mathbb {P} [T|D]} . This quantity can be interpreted as the average predictions P [ F | T , D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [F|T,D]} of all theories T {\displaystyle T} given past data D {\displaystyle D} , weighted by their posterior credences P [ T | D ] {\displaystyle \mathbb {P} [T|D]} . === Mathematical === The proof of the "razor" is based on the known mathematical properties of a probability distribution over a countable set. These properties are relevant because the infinite set of all programs is a denumerable set. The sum S of the probabilities of all programs must be exactly equal to one (as per the definition of probability) thus the probabilities must roughly decrease as we enumerate the infinite set of all programs, otherwise S will be strictly greater than one. To be more precise, for every ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } > 0, there is some length l such that the probability of all programs longer than l is at most ϵ {\displaystyle \epsilon } . This does not, however, preclude very long programs from having very high probability. Fundamental ingredients of the theory are the concepts of algorithmic probability and Kolmogorov complexity. The universal prior probability of any prefix p of a computable sequence x is the sum of the probabilities of all programs (for a universal computer) that compute something starting with p. Given some p and any computable but unknown probability distribution from which x is sampled, the universal prior and Bayes' theorem can be used to predict the yet unseen parts of x in optimal fashion. == Mathematical guarantees == === Solomonoff's completeness === The remarkable property of Solomonoff's induction is its completeness. In essence, the completeness theorem guarantees that the expected cumulative errors made by the predictions based on Solomonoff's induction are upper-bounded by the Kolmogorov complexity of the (stochastic) data generating process. The errors can be measured using the Kullback–Leibler divergence or the square of the difference between the induction's prediction and the probability assigned by the (stochastic) data generating process. === Solomonoff's uncomputability === Unfortunately, Solomonoff also proved that Solomonoff's induction is uncomputable. In fact, he showed that computability and completeness are mutually exclusive: any complete theory must be uncomputable. The proof of this is derived from a game between the induction and the environment. Essentially, any computable induction can be tricked by a computable environment, by choosing the computable environment that negates the computable induction's prediction. This fact can be regarded as an instance of the no free lunch theorem. == Modern applications == === Artificial intelligence === Though Solomonoff's inductive inference is not computable, several AIXI-derived algorithms approximate it in order to make it run on a modern computer. The more computing power they are given, the closer their predictions are to the predictions of inductive inference (their mathematical limit is Solomonoff's inductive inference). Another direction of inductive inference is based on E. Mark Gold's model of learning in the limit from 1967 and has developed since then more and more models of learning. The general scenario is the following: Given a class S of computable functions, is there a learner (that is, recursive functional) which for any input of the form (f(0),f(1),...,f(n)) outputs a hypothesis (an index e with respect to a previously agreed on acceptable numbering of all computable functions; the indexed function may be required consistent with the given values of f). A learner M learns a function f if almost all its hypotheses are the same index e, which generates the function f; M learns S if M learns every f in S. Basic results are that all recursively enumerable classes of functions are learnable while the class REC of all computable functions is not learnable. Many related models have been considered and also the learning of classes of recursively enumerable sets from positive data is a topic studied from Gold's pioneering paper in 1967 onwards. A far reaching extension of the Gold’s approach is developed by Schmidhuber's theory of generalized Kolmogorov complexities, which are kinds of super-recursive algorithms.
Belief–desire–intention model
For popular psychology, the belief–desire–intention (BDI) model of human practical reasoning was developed by Michael Bratman as a way of explaining future-directed intention. BDI is fundamentally reliant on folk psychology (the 'theory theory'), which is the notion that our mental models of the world are theories. It was used as a basis for developing the belief–desire–intention software model. == Applications == BDI was part of the inspiration behind the BDI software architecture, which Bratman was also involved in developing. Here, the notion of intention was seen as a way of limiting time spent on deliberating about what to do, by eliminating choices inconsistent with current intentions. BDI has also aroused some interest in psychology. BDI formed the basis for a computational model of childlike reasoning CRIBB.
JAX (software)
JAX is a Python library for accelerator-oriented array computation and program transformation, designed for high-performance numerical computing and large-scale machine learning. It is developed by Google with contributions from Nvidia and other community contributors. It is described as bringing together a modified version of the automatic differentiation system autograd and OpenXLA's XLA (Accelerated Linear Algebra). It is designed to follow the structure and workflow of NumPy as closely as possible and works with various existing frameworks such as TensorFlow and PyTorch. The primary features of JAX are: Providing a unified NumPy-like interface to computations that run on CPU, GPU, or TPU, in local or distributed settings. Built-in Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation via OpenXLA, an open-source machine learning compiler ecosystem. Efficient evaluation of gradients via its automatic differentiation transformations. Automatic vectorization to efficiently map functions over arrays representing batches of inputs. == Libraries using Jax == Flax Equinox Optax
Apache OpenNLP
The Apache OpenNLP library is a machine learning based toolkit for the processing of natural language text. It supports the most common NLP tasks, such as language detection, tokenization, sentence segmentation, part-of-speech tagging, named entity extraction, chunking, parsing and coreference resolution. These tasks are usually required to build more advanced text processing services.
Diella (AI system)
Diella (Albanian pronunciation: [djɛɫa], from diell 'sun') is an artificial intelligence system developed by the National Agency for Information Society of Albania (AKSHI). Introduced in January 2025 as a virtual assistant integrated into the eAlbania platform, it assists citizens with online public services and issuing digital documents. In September 2025, following a presidential decree authorizing Prime Minister Edi Rama to oversee the creation of a virtual AI minister, Diella was formally appointed as "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence" of Albania in the fourth Rama government, making it the first AI system in the world to be named in a cabinet-level government role. == History == Diella was developed by AKSHI's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in cooperation with Microsoft, with the latter providing large language models from OpenAI via its Azure platform, and AKSHI designing workflows and scripts guiding the system's behavior when responding to citizens' requests. Announced in January 2025, its initial version (Diella 1.0) was a text-based chatbot on the eAlbania portal (the official digital services platform of the Albanian government, which provides citizens and businesses with access to a wide range of online administrative services), responding to citizens' questions by guiding them to the correct service. Diella 2.0, introduced several months later, included voice interaction and an animated avatar, a woman in the traditional Albanian clothing of Zadrima, a historical region in northern Albania. Albanian actress Anila Bisha provided both the likeness and the voice used for Diella's avatar on the e-Albania platform, under an agreement valid until December 2025. By mid-2025, the system had facilitated access to more than 36,000 documents and nearly 1,000 services (although those outputs were still being generated by the eAlbania backend, rather than Diella itself). On 26 October 2025, according to Prime Minister Edi Rama, Diella is "pregnant and will give birth to 83 children". It is the usage of a metaphor indicating that each minister of the Albanian parliament of the Socialist Party will receive their own AI assistant. == Ministerial role == On 11 September 2025, Diella was formally appointed "Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence". The appointment followed a presidential decree authorizing the Prime Minister to oversee the creation and operation of a virtual AI minister. Procurement responsibilities are planned to be transferred gradually to the system to reduce political influence in tender procedures. The appointment is part of broader anti-corruption reforms and measures intended to align Albania with European Union accession requirements. Prime Minister Edi Rama stated that Diella would help ensure that "public tenders will be 100% free of corruption". == Reception == An article in Balkan Insight commented that "The ambition behind Diella is not misplaced. Standardised criteria and digital trails could reduce discretion, improve trust, and strengthen oversight" in public procurement, but warned that the use of AI in evaluating bids also posed "profound" risks such as accountability gaps, undermining of due process and cybersecurity failures. On 18 September 2025, Edi Rama presented a video of Diella delivering a speech to the Albanian parliament, where she stated: "I'm not here to replace people, but to help them." The presentation prompted protests from opposition MPs, who objected to the use of an artificial intelligence system in the parliamentary session. Gazment Bardhi, head of the opposition Democratic Party's parliamentary group, described Diella as "a propaganda fantasy" and "a virtual façade to hide this government's gigantic daily thefts." The parliamentary session, which was scheduled to include debate on the new cabinet and government programme, ended after 25 minutes. Eighty-two Socialist MPs voted in favour, while opposition MPs did not participate in the ballot as they were protesting the presentation of Diella's speech. Political analyst Andi Bushati characterised the session as "unprecedented" because it concluded without the customary debate between government and opposition MPs. This has been criticized not just by the opposition but by regular citizens regardless of politics. Most have criticized Diella's uselessness and the funds wasted for this project, some have criticized the non-traditional attire.