I am still reading ill thought comments about Google+, that it is failing at attracting users that no one stays to discuss and interact. I explained what was going to happen *back in september* but few seem to understand what their strategy is about.
Google+ adoption (the sign up process) is tied to conversion from existing google services to google+ profiles and growth (in terms of increased use of the service by the users that adopt it by signing up) is tied to scale and network creation (not conversion).
They are gaining viral adoption now but are going to hit their super viral mode (when more people start spending longer periods of time on the service itself) when the people who are starting a "social network home" there start interacting there because ALL their network (or most of them) will be "born" there.
Social networks are so sticky because the people we interact with in the real world are on them, google+ has the problem of needing to bring you AND your network over in order to get you to spend appreciable time there. This is why their strategy of just tying together existing resources (where people use their products world wide) and then providing the social platform for those people to build their network from ground up there is so smart. It is a time based strategy that appeals to all those *billions* of people who have yet to be on any social network. Facebook is big yes...and all over the world yes...but Facebook connects 800 million...but there are 7 billion on the planet...that is a lot of social networks waiting to be built and a much larger chunk of those 7 billion are now using at least one google product....and thus the hook is in the jaw. If their first taste of a social network is via an automatic Google+ sign up via gmail or docs or search...then that is where they will build their "home". Facebook lacking all those distributed features has to go the other way...country by country...hopefully virally building inward....Google+ is kind of converting existing service users to social networkers in the opposite way and that is going to take more time.
I won't probably ever be a big user of google+ (outside of business and networking purposes) because most of my *social network* is HERE and not there and I have nearly 1,000 in that network....to much work for me to move there and next to impossible to get them all to move there as well....but people with much smaller networks, will find that task way easier.
Finally, by getting the deeper demographic information from a sign up that google now has via Google+ they can target their ads better world wide and charge more efficiently for them even without the growth (as defined above)...and thus make more ad money *weather the people use their G+ service or not* today.
It's a total, win win situation, win now from the sign up and conversion efficiency of the service AND win later as the loose fish all over the world start and build networks on the first social network they see (google+).
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/googles-plan-for-google-is-not-to-steal.html
05 March, 2012
Self Healing Infrastructure, more details on how it will emerge.
The question was posed in a Facebook thread:
"Unfortunately eliminating property taxes would just be a recipe for even more severe wealth concentration, as there would be no cost to hoarding land. Have you ever played Monopoly®? Studied English feudalism?"
It's a good question to which I'd not previously provided a detailed answer, that answer now follows:
Yes, assuming restricted apportionment of land laws are not generated wealth concentration would continue to occur, however ; in a world where having the land sufficient to survive and thrive for one and ones family can be had property tax free, acquisition of lands beyond *need* will be a practice shunned, for several reasons. First, environmental (this isn't our planet to grab land and do with as we wish willy nilly, though we've behaved that way in this era of limited infrastructure resources, when resources are easily extracted at low or no cost to us and then demand tightly coupled to that extraction (by automated metering of need keyed to production) land apportionment will be determined not by the imagined need of a rich land owner but by known demand. It will become more and more seen as socially responsible to not live beyond ones means, we see this already happening in the calls from extremely rich people to give up much of their wealth toward enterprises that better man. I predict these types of altruistic actions will have more pressure to be performed as the rich will be the very first to be able to completely pinch off of the labor pool by building their own private SHI infrastructures .
Second, the purpose for grabbing land these days involves what? Using it for some purpose, either to extract rentier fees from those that lease it, use it to grow plants or use it to extract resources. Each of these reasons will become either increasingly costly (away from dollar cost and toward time costs) to perform OR pointless to perform (once you've got your own *self healing* infrastructure providing you with the means to thrive then you need no longer to extract such means from labor/fee interactions with other human beings).
The end of the rentier class
As we approach SHI, I predict rentiers will have long before generated sufficient wealth to have emancipated their wealth in the form of SHI resources. The creators of the SHI elements will do this indirectly first by actually selling the means to construct the SHI, to every one ...by they corporations, individuals home owners or small businesses and farms. The rising tide of automation (as it is happening now with computer software) will raise all boats of production capability, moving it further from human agents and firmly on automated ones. As more people have such means they will be able to secure their own plots of land more easily and once had will be able to maintain that land (as they will have their own piece of SHI to help them do it...as well as the growing SHI of the land helping them as well). So the rentier class will basically go obsolete as it will be more work to extract income from renters than it will be to just derive income from ones own SHI, in short people who "rent" will go extinct as they pinch off and generate their own SHI driven bubbles of self sufficiency. So keep in mind the key elements that will be in place to make this possible.
1) Deep deployment of artificial intelligence, machine learning automation of the type that learns from watching a given data set and then optimizes performance by redirecting observed actions such that they can be performed more efficiently. This is precisely what Action Oriented Workflow (ADA-action delta assessment) algorithm does for business work processes. It's also what Boston Dynamics learning robots do to perform dynamic state estimation that is efficient for walking, it is also what the University of Pennsylvania and ETH Zurich quadrocoptors do to make those learning processes efficient. It is behind how Google translate "learns" to speak different languages. It is behind the driving capability of Google's and other car makers self driving car programs. The realization that statistical approaches to learning are extremely efficient is being deployed across many data sets (Note link below to use of Google's "page rank" algorithm for aiding in water processing to be convinced of this) using algorithms of this nature. These will be critical in enabling the first pieces of SHI, the reduction in distribution costs that I mentioned in this post. Already Google has seen the usefulness of a driving infrasturucture that for the most part conducts itself even while people are inside the vehicles. These types of hidden AI will be flattening cost structures in many types of industries but they will also be the main source of near term economic turmoil as displayed workers from areas taken over by this soft AI as I'll call it mount. AOW, itself involves automated learning algorithms and aids in this latter problem of displayed workers by allowing people to maximize their value...but the true efficiency of SHI will be realized only when entire production industries are taken over by SHI elements (robot/ai:design + robot/ai:construction + robot/ai:labor + robot/ai:repair).
2) Construction of the first learning and autonomous robots. Once the artificial intelligence being designed is able to emerge dynamic cognition, we will be able to fully replace humans in the last area that requires their need...physical labor in small roles. This will enable us to SHI enable many tasks that have massive human costs to their production today. All the labor and service roles in hospitals, repair shops, air ports can be replaced by agile robots doing the same. All labor on farms for planting and picking can be enabled and reduce a massive cost center in the way of production cost reductions in food production. All the human labor roles in mining and construction of all types (roads, buildings, bridges) will all be able to be replaced. Again, massive costs lay in the human resource needs of these areas today, once the final energy puzzle piece is in place (it will actually be first to be in place in my view) then these areas can be fully SHI enabled and the building of necessary infrastructure will be automated and optimized to the needs of humans but only tenuously constructed by humans (as designers along with AI).
3) Unlimited and SHI designed and operated energy production is a prerequisite of a wider deployment of other SHI elements. The facile availability of power to run the robots that build the different aspects of the SHI is critical. These technologies are being rapidly accelerated as we speak as very efficient solar, hydro-solar and hydroelectric systems come online. As well the last 5 years has seen a massive increase in the development of bio-solar techniques and these will become increasingly efficient in the coming decades. Energy directly produced from living agents on plant matter is another huge future industry that will provide the necessary fuel (and once production for those is SHI enabled with automated robot agents they'll be self sufficient) I believe the solar technologies are the most advanced and also the most efficient and will form the bulk of power needs in the SHI future with electricity running most aspects of the SHI over liquid fuels which will linger only for the formal airline industry and even there future technologies may remove that sector. In any case all will be SHI enabled removing humans entirely from the loop in terms of production and thus eliminating the costs of labor provided/ payment demanded that drives economies today.
Optimal production for farming achieved
The same will happen with those that engage in agriculture on the land, as SHI elements are deployed...automated tractors, robot planters and pickers, automated processing plants with robots where needed, automated distribution and delivery. Production can be coupled directly to demand and land apportionment for necessary production can also be dynamically and automatically calculated. Farms don't grow any larger than demand needs them to grow, nothing will change about that post SHI, save that those farms will be even more efficient than the very efficient semi automated farms of today, the ability to extract more food from smaller areas of land will continue. As long as demand doesn't rise on a continuous scale (and there is no reason to think it will once we get all regions in the planet on a 0 or negative moving population growth rate) farm sizes will reach optimal land apportionment for necessary demand at peak population in a given region and from then on *fall*. Just as it is doing in local parts of Europe and Asia today.
When gold "mines itself"
Finally, extraction of resources. Again, once the barons of industries that perform that tasks today have fattened their coffers, implementation of SHI like elements (robot miners, robot extraction trucks, diggers, robot processing plants of minerals, ore, sand...etc) will enable the businesses to run free of the current corporate requirement of "make more money this quarter than last quarter" ironically the value of corporations to potential investors will *fall* over time as investors (people) increasingly pinch off to their own bubbles of self sufficiency by building their own SHI and tying in to the SHI being built by the local and wider government in which they are embedded. This will happen across all areas of society. Production sources like smelting plants for ore will also have tight correlation to demand and corporate profits derived from these businesses will become more or less constant and in so doing making that production commodity. Commodities today trade usually in a short range of pricing and over long periods of time earn their investors wealth through compounding...this future will see the return time frame stretch out into infinity as production will be tied (through automation) to demand closer than was ever before possible. The profit motive will dissolve as humans pinch completely out of the loop and the former owners of the business emancipate the production infrastructure (now all SHI enabled) completely to the needs of society.
Links:
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/action-oriented-workflow-maximize-your.html
https://www.grasp.upenn.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Dynamics
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/google-pagerank-water/
Previous articles on SHI:
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/07/coming-age-of-shi-self-healing.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-approach-to-self-healing.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/meat-production-local-versus-export-and.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/10/self-healing-infrastructure-means-end.html
"Unfortunately eliminating property taxes would just be a recipe for even more severe wealth concentration, as there would be no cost to hoarding land. Have you ever played Monopoly®? Studied English feudalism?"
It's a good question to which I'd not previously provided a detailed answer, that answer now follows:
Yes, assuming restricted apportionment of land laws are not generated wealth concentration would continue to occur, however ; in a world where having the land sufficient to survive and thrive for one and ones family can be had property tax free, acquisition of lands beyond *need* will be a practice shunned, for several reasons. First, environmental (this isn't our planet to grab land and do with as we wish willy nilly, though we've behaved that way in this era of limited infrastructure resources, when resources are easily extracted at low or no cost to us and then demand tightly coupled to that extraction (by automated metering of need keyed to production) land apportionment will be determined not by the imagined need of a rich land owner but by known demand. It will become more and more seen as socially responsible to not live beyond ones means, we see this already happening in the calls from extremely rich people to give up much of their wealth toward enterprises that better man. I predict these types of altruistic actions will have more pressure to be performed as the rich will be the very first to be able to completely pinch off of the labor pool by building their own private SHI infrastructures .
Second, the purpose for grabbing land these days involves what? Using it for some purpose, either to extract rentier fees from those that lease it, use it to grow plants or use it to extract resources. Each of these reasons will become either increasingly costly (away from dollar cost and toward time costs) to perform OR pointless to perform (once you've got your own *self healing* infrastructure providing you with the means to thrive then you need no longer to extract such means from labor/fee interactions with other human beings).
The end of the rentier class
As we approach SHI, I predict rentiers will have long before generated sufficient wealth to have emancipated their wealth in the form of SHI resources. The creators of the SHI elements will do this indirectly first by actually selling the means to construct the SHI, to every one ...by they corporations, individuals home owners or small businesses and farms. The rising tide of automation (as it is happening now with computer software) will raise all boats of production capability, moving it further from human agents and firmly on automated ones. As more people have such means they will be able to secure their own plots of land more easily and once had will be able to maintain that land (as they will have their own piece of SHI to help them do it...as well as the growing SHI of the land helping them as well). So the rentier class will basically go obsolete as it will be more work to extract income from renters than it will be to just derive income from ones own SHI, in short people who "rent" will go extinct as they pinch off and generate their own SHI driven bubbles of self sufficiency. So keep in mind the key elements that will be in place to make this possible.
1) Deep deployment of artificial intelligence, machine learning automation of the type that learns from watching a given data set and then optimizes performance by redirecting observed actions such that they can be performed more efficiently. This is precisely what Action Oriented Workflow (ADA-action delta assessment) algorithm does for business work processes. It's also what Boston Dynamics learning robots do to perform dynamic state estimation that is efficient for walking, it is also what the University of Pennsylvania and ETH Zurich quadrocoptors do to make those learning processes efficient. It is behind how Google translate "learns" to speak different languages. It is behind the driving capability of Google's and other car makers self driving car programs. The realization that statistical approaches to learning are extremely efficient is being deployed across many data sets (Note link below to use of Google's "page rank" algorithm for aiding in water processing to be convinced of this) using algorithms of this nature. These will be critical in enabling the first pieces of SHI, the reduction in distribution costs that I mentioned in this post. Already Google has seen the usefulness of a driving infrasturucture that for the most part conducts itself even while people are inside the vehicles. These types of hidden AI will be flattening cost structures in many types of industries but they will also be the main source of near term economic turmoil as displayed workers from areas taken over by this soft AI as I'll call it mount. AOW, itself involves automated learning algorithms and aids in this latter problem of displayed workers by allowing people to maximize their value...but the true efficiency of SHI will be realized only when entire production industries are taken over by SHI elements (robot/ai:design + robot/ai:construction + robot/ai:labor + robot/ai:repair).
2) Construction of the first learning and autonomous robots. Once the artificial intelligence being designed is able to emerge dynamic cognition, we will be able to fully replace humans in the last area that requires their need...physical labor in small roles. This will enable us to SHI enable many tasks that have massive human costs to their production today. All the labor and service roles in hospitals, repair shops, air ports can be replaced by agile robots doing the same. All labor on farms for planting and picking can be enabled and reduce a massive cost center in the way of production cost reductions in food production. All the human labor roles in mining and construction of all types (roads, buildings, bridges) will all be able to be replaced. Again, massive costs lay in the human resource needs of these areas today, once the final energy puzzle piece is in place (it will actually be first to be in place in my view) then these areas can be fully SHI enabled and the building of necessary infrastructure will be automated and optimized to the needs of humans but only tenuously constructed by humans (as designers along with AI).
3) Unlimited and SHI designed and operated energy production is a prerequisite of a wider deployment of other SHI elements. The facile availability of power to run the robots that build the different aspects of the SHI is critical. These technologies are being rapidly accelerated as we speak as very efficient solar, hydro-solar and hydroelectric systems come online. As well the last 5 years has seen a massive increase in the development of bio-solar techniques and these will become increasingly efficient in the coming decades. Energy directly produced from living agents on plant matter is another huge future industry that will provide the necessary fuel (and once production for those is SHI enabled with automated robot agents they'll be self sufficient) I believe the solar technologies are the most advanced and also the most efficient and will form the bulk of power needs in the SHI future with electricity running most aspects of the SHI over liquid fuels which will linger only for the formal airline industry and even there future technologies may remove that sector. In any case all will be SHI enabled removing humans entirely from the loop in terms of production and thus eliminating the costs of labor provided/ payment demanded that drives economies today.
Optimal production for farming achieved
The same will happen with those that engage in agriculture on the land, as SHI elements are deployed...automated tractors, robot planters and pickers, automated processing plants with robots where needed, automated distribution and delivery. Production can be coupled directly to demand and land apportionment for necessary production can also be dynamically and automatically calculated. Farms don't grow any larger than demand needs them to grow, nothing will change about that post SHI, save that those farms will be even more efficient than the very efficient semi automated farms of today, the ability to extract more food from smaller areas of land will continue. As long as demand doesn't rise on a continuous scale (and there is no reason to think it will once we get all regions in the planet on a 0 or negative moving population growth rate) farm sizes will reach optimal land apportionment for necessary demand at peak population in a given region and from then on *fall*. Just as it is doing in local parts of Europe and Asia today.
When gold "mines itself"
Finally, extraction of resources. Again, once the barons of industries that perform that tasks today have fattened their coffers, implementation of SHI like elements (robot miners, robot extraction trucks, diggers, robot processing plants of minerals, ore, sand...etc) will enable the businesses to run free of the current corporate requirement of "make more money this quarter than last quarter" ironically the value of corporations to potential investors will *fall* over time as investors (people) increasingly pinch off to their own bubbles of self sufficiency by building their own SHI and tying in to the SHI being built by the local and wider government in which they are embedded. This will happen across all areas of society. Production sources like smelting plants for ore will also have tight correlation to demand and corporate profits derived from these businesses will become more or less constant and in so doing making that production commodity. Commodities today trade usually in a short range of pricing and over long periods of time earn their investors wealth through compounding...this future will see the return time frame stretch out into infinity as production will be tied (through automation) to demand closer than was ever before possible. The profit motive will dissolve as humans pinch completely out of the loop and the former owners of the business emancipate the production infrastructure (now all SHI enabled) completely to the needs of society.
Links:
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/action-oriented-workflow-maximize-your.html
https://www.grasp.upenn.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Dynamics
http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/02/google-pagerank-water/
Previous articles on SHI:
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/07/coming-age-of-shi-self-healing.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/how-approach-to-self-healing.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/meat-production-local-versus-export-and.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/10/self-healing-infrastructure-means-end.html
04 March, 2012
Free will exists or doesn't depending on your scope of definition
A recent thread on Facebook brought up the question of weather or not free will exists. The mention of Sam Harris views on free will (that science has shown it doesn't exist) provided fodder to explain what I've seen as a key difficulty in answering this question that all of the discussants seem to fail to realized. It regards the MASSIVE
misunderstanding between those discussing the subject in academia or as laymen.
I refuse to enter the discussion before creating a solid formal definition of what "free will" is, to some it is the ability to chose your destiny based on your desires in the moment, to others it is a stronger idea of not being tied to the autonomic drives of your physical self that defines the probability cone of what you *may do*.
It is obvious both from the neuroscience and biology proper that it can't be the former, "free will" is about weather or not your substrate bound cone of possibility is in anyway *pre* constrained OUTSIDE of your physical self.
The answer to THAT question is obvious, NO. Because though you are self contained body and brain, your physical unit is embedded in a random soup of possible interactions with OTHER agents (and a more or less random environment bubble as well) where your physical unit has no way of predicting what it will interact with, what resources it will encounter and thus no way of pre- determining what it will chose across any aspect of the emergent cognitive landscape (MIND).
So the answer to why it has been so hard to answer is that there are scopes of observation to define what "free will" is, and the confusion over the different definitions of "free will" that apply scope of observation of "free will" from physical unit TO mind as opposed to from say brain physiological substrate to MIND is where all the confusion comes in. Different people arguing about different conceptions of "free will" but no realizing it.
So wit the definition I described above down, I say there is free will in that scope of observation....but as we bring the cone of observation closer to the mind free will seems to boil down to a finite if large set of "reactions" to a given stimuli that look like there isn't free will but that is only because the randomness of the external physical context is not being accounted for.
In the same way that just 4 base nucleotides can be combined in *infinite* lengths to produce variant proteins and enzymes...so to is this set of possible choice options for cognitive agents infinitely combined to produce unique "choice" interactions...and thus proving that "free will" (secondarily defined as the ability to select from an infinite set of possible choices chains) does exist.
Sam Harris is stuck in the brain, he's not adding in that "physical unit" scope to external environment and so from his perspective all he sees is that subset of "reactions" to stimuli but he misses that those reactions are continuously summable and each unit addition makes a new "choice" possibility, just as each new amino acid added to a protein chain makes it's fold and active site affinity *slightly* different and thus it's bonding activity different.
So, does "free will" exist? If you accept the wider scope view then yes...if you accept the finite subset of "reactions" view, no. It is obvious that we are indeed embedded in a environment of interaction with other individuals that is extremely large if not infinite but constantly changing, in that context then we have practical free will, as no interaction between ourselves and the external environment will ever be the same and our internal reaction to those external stimuli also dynamically varies, so I'll just go ahead and say "YES" with the aforementioned conditions in place.
I refuse to enter the discussion before creating a solid formal definition of what "free will" is, to some it is the ability to chose your destiny based on your desires in the moment, to others it is a stronger idea of not being tied to the autonomic drives of your physical self that defines the probability cone of what you *may do*.
It is obvious both from the neuroscience and biology proper that it can't be the former, "free will" is about weather or not your substrate bound cone of possibility is in anyway *pre* constrained OUTSIDE of your physical self.
The answer to THAT question is obvious, NO. Because though you are self contained body and brain, your physical unit is embedded in a random soup of possible interactions with OTHER agents (and a more or less random environment bubble as well) where your physical unit has no way of predicting what it will interact with, what resources it will encounter and thus no way of pre- determining what it will chose across any aspect of the emergent cognitive landscape (MIND).
So the answer to why it has been so hard to answer is that there are scopes of observation to define what "free will" is, and the confusion over the different definitions of "free will" that apply scope of observation of "free will" from physical unit TO mind as opposed to from say brain physiological substrate to MIND is where all the confusion comes in. Different people arguing about different conceptions of "free will" but no realizing it.
So wit the definition I described above down, I say there is free will in that scope of observation....but as we bring the cone of observation closer to the mind free will seems to boil down to a finite if large set of "reactions" to a given stimuli that look like there isn't free will but that is only because the randomness of the external physical context is not being accounted for.
In the same way that just 4 base nucleotides can be combined in *infinite* lengths to produce variant proteins and enzymes...so to is this set of possible choice options for cognitive agents infinitely combined to produce unique "choice" interactions...and thus proving that "free will" (secondarily defined as the ability to select from an infinite set of possible choices chains) does exist.
Sam Harris is stuck in the brain, he's not adding in that "physical unit" scope to external environment and so from his perspective all he sees is that subset of "reactions" to stimuli but he misses that those reactions are continuously summable and each unit addition makes a new "choice" possibility, just as each new amino acid added to a protein chain makes it's fold and active site affinity *slightly* different and thus it's bonding activity different.
So, does "free will" exist? If you accept the wider scope view then yes...if you accept the finite subset of "reactions" view, no. It is obvious that we are indeed embedded in a environment of interaction with other individuals that is extremely large if not infinite but constantly changing, in that context then we have practical free will, as no interaction between ourselves and the external environment will ever be the same and our internal reaction to those external stimuli also dynamically varies, so I'll just go ahead and say "YES" with the aforementioned conditions in place.
28 February, 2012
Senslessness of software patents...
Why I don't support them:
1) Patents in software tend to be granted for trivial, non novel solutions that any competent engineer with a few minutes or hours to think about the problem will emerge.
2) Innovations in software and hardware engineering are much more difficult to reverse engineer making them more stable when subject to attempts to copy. Reverse engineering much of software code (algorithms) is rendered impossible depending on how the code is implemented or made available for end use. The innovation is in the secret of the algorithm(s) which is locked in the implementation, as long as that is kept away from prying eyes it is a *defacto patent*. Reverse engineering such tech. is either very hard or impossible (especially for web services) so again lessening the need for formal patents in the space.
3) Once granted a trivial patent is like a hammer that prevent others from right to apply trivial methods and forces money into licensing deals instead of paying for more *innovation* in the form of R&D on new products and services.
4) Once granted and later defended or used to defend, large bulks of money go to lawyers...who in no way contribute to building innovation which can change human lives, it's wasted *human* investment.
5) In industries were patents don't apply there is rampant innovation (take fashion) and no shortage of competition or players willing to invest time to create new ideas (in clothing) ...if something is copied fine, they just innovate some thing new for the next season. We need that type of rapacious innovation to take hold in technology, and eliminating patents in the space (to some ironically) would do that.
Links:
Ted talk on fashion and innovation by Johanna Blakely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
1) Patents in software tend to be granted for trivial, non novel solutions that any competent engineer with a few minutes or hours to think about the problem will emerge.
2) Innovations in software and hardware engineering are much more difficult to reverse engineer making them more stable when subject to attempts to copy. Reverse engineering much of software code (algorithms) is rendered impossible depending on how the code is implemented or made available for end use. The innovation is in the secret of the algorithm(s) which is locked in the implementation, as long as that is kept away from prying eyes it is a *defacto patent*. Reverse engineering such tech. is either very hard or impossible (especially for web services) so again lessening the need for formal patents in the space.
3) Once granted a trivial patent is like a hammer that prevent others from right to apply trivial methods and forces money into licensing deals instead of paying for more *innovation* in the form of R&D on new products and services.
4) Once granted and later defended or used to defend, large bulks of money go to lawyers...who in no way contribute to building innovation which can change human lives, it's wasted *human* investment.
5) In industries were patents don't apply there is rampant innovation (take fashion) and no shortage of competition or players willing to invest time to create new ideas (in clothing) ...if something is copied fine, they just innovate some thing new for the next season. We need that type of rapacious innovation to take hold in technology, and eliminating patents in the space (to some ironically) would do that.
Links:
Ted talk on fashion and innovation by Johanna Blakely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0
Ringing different songs of perception in the mind...
I've been doing a lot of thinking on the cognitive under pinning of language the last few years and the increased level of discourse that I've engaged in social networks like facebook has allowed me to analyze how amazingly varied the *perception* of word meaning and sentence intent varies from one person to the next.
It's obvious that as a consequence of the variance in assumed definitions for words that this would be so (trivially) but the difficulties go far beyond simply associated the first order meaning of words used in a sentence. There are nth order effects, resonances in meaning that automatically emerge when we link words into sentences. For example :
"Looking forlorn, Lisa traced circles in the sand sitting in her chair...hair, wind aloft."
You will perceive that sentence differently from how I do for several reasons:
1) Punctuation, placement of commas and ellipses are not universally utilized according to the specifications of the linguistic devices that they are. "wrong" application of them in reading the line will inspire "different" perception of the sentence. Note , "wrong" inspires "different" not wrong inspires wrong. When probed I might correct any interpretation that does not align with my intention assuming I had an intention that was not ambiguous. For example the phrase "Lisa traced circles in the sand sitting in her chair" was designed precisely because it is ambiguous...is she sitting in her chair tracing circles in the sand (say with her extended foot) or is she kneeled before a chair with sand on the seat and is she using her fingers to trace the sand? where "sitting" is used metaphorically to describe the "sand"...both reads are legal from that part of the sentence.
2) Word definitions, forlorn is a rather old word that has gone out of favor as used to describe a mental state and was used here on purpose. Some will see it as synonymous to "pensive" others might make it seem akin more to "sad" others will mix both to imply "pensive sadness or longing". Depending on the meaning that has strongest significance to the reader that will change the "flavor" of the entire sentence. That's just one word...the same may be said of the last phrase "hair, wind aloft." which may paint different images depending on the strength of the imagined wind...a gentle breeze or a stronger rush? The words paint different images in different minds depending on the assumed meanings.
3) Sentence structure, taken together words of variable definition perception and intensity coupled with variable understanding of punctuation create a third order of complexity in perception. The first phrase, the middle ambiguous phrase and the ellipses separated third short phrase combine to paint an image that is unique. An image that we all fill in with our own meanings for those concepts but not just meanings but we fill in our own experiences of those concepts. We read a sentence as reflected through our experience set of words, meanings and punctuation...a hierarchical layer cake of cognitive concepts that is distinct to our perception.
I, as the author and using words; can paint a canvas and have each person that looks at it *see a different painting*. It is a remarkable aspect of the dynamism of language to simultaneously encapsulate the rough boundaries of concepts we wish to relay while opening up mixing of ideas in the minds of those that hear or are given those concepts that emerge new perceptions or ways of thinking about what is being relayed.
The work in neuroscience of the last few years involving the mapping of the linguistic centers are showing us the complexity of the language processing system and these complexities will be used by researchers (such as myself) to provide insights into how to simulate processing of language by artificial agents. This being one of the reasons for my fascination with the current work in the space, still I find it beautiful (and a reason why I occasionally create poetry) that words strung into sentences ring different songs of perception in the minds of those that read them...making them a truly unique signal from most other types of sensed information which have more or less objective (physical) bases of similarity across individuals. For example....you see the same blue I see....more or less..
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-you-see-what-i-seefor-most-part.html
It's obvious that as a consequence of the variance in assumed definitions for words that this would be so (trivially) but the difficulties go far beyond simply associated the first order meaning of words used in a sentence. There are nth order effects, resonances in meaning that automatically emerge when we link words into sentences. For example :
"Looking forlorn, Lisa traced circles in the sand sitting in her chair...hair, wind aloft."
You will perceive that sentence differently from how I do for several reasons:
1) Punctuation, placement of commas and ellipses are not universally utilized according to the specifications of the linguistic devices that they are. "wrong" application of them in reading the line will inspire "different" perception of the sentence. Note , "wrong" inspires "different" not wrong inspires wrong. When probed I might correct any interpretation that does not align with my intention assuming I had an intention that was not ambiguous. For example the phrase "Lisa traced circles in the sand sitting in her chair" was designed precisely because it is ambiguous...is she sitting in her chair tracing circles in the sand (say with her extended foot) or is she kneeled before a chair with sand on the seat and is she using her fingers to trace the sand? where "sitting" is used metaphorically to describe the "sand"...both reads are legal from that part of the sentence.
2) Word definitions, forlorn is a rather old word that has gone out of favor as used to describe a mental state and was used here on purpose. Some will see it as synonymous to "pensive" others might make it seem akin more to "sad" others will mix both to imply "pensive sadness or longing". Depending on the meaning that has strongest significance to the reader that will change the "flavor" of the entire sentence. That's just one word...the same may be said of the last phrase "hair, wind aloft." which may paint different images depending on the strength of the imagined wind...a gentle breeze or a stronger rush? The words paint different images in different minds depending on the assumed meanings.
3) Sentence structure, taken together words of variable definition perception and intensity coupled with variable understanding of punctuation create a third order of complexity in perception. The first phrase, the middle ambiguous phrase and the ellipses separated third short phrase combine to paint an image that is unique. An image that we all fill in with our own meanings for those concepts but not just meanings but we fill in our own experiences of those concepts. We read a sentence as reflected through our experience set of words, meanings and punctuation...a hierarchical layer cake of cognitive concepts that is distinct to our perception.
I, as the author and using words; can paint a canvas and have each person that looks at it *see a different painting*. It is a remarkable aspect of the dynamism of language to simultaneously encapsulate the rough boundaries of concepts we wish to relay while opening up mixing of ideas in the minds of those that hear or are given those concepts that emerge new perceptions or ways of thinking about what is being relayed.
The work in neuroscience of the last few years involving the mapping of the linguistic centers are showing us the complexity of the language processing system and these complexities will be used by researchers (such as myself) to provide insights into how to simulate processing of language by artificial agents. This being one of the reasons for my fascination with the current work in the space, still I find it beautiful (and a reason why I occasionally create poetry) that words strung into sentences ring different songs of perception in the minds of those that read them...making them a truly unique signal from most other types of sensed information which have more or less objective (physical) bases of similarity across individuals. For example....you see the same blue I see....more or less..
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2008/12/why-you-see-what-i-seefor-most-part.html
27 February, 2012
When your smart phone comes alive.
A recent post in the Strong AI discussion group on Facebook inspired me to formalize some ideas I've been having regarding the optimal physical substrate upon which to build a cognitively dynamic entity, otherwise known as an artificial intelligence.
Along the lines of my writings in this area I have stressed the critical importance for the simulation (or creation in fact) of autonomic and emotional drivers for the cognitive entity. I have asserted that absent those modules the agent would be little more than the very advanced neural network and pattern matching algorithms and solutions that are currently making a great deal of waves by being incorporated in various ways into all types of human problems. From use in machine vision to language processing to analyzing data sets (Watson) the use of pattern matching AI and in particular the use of statistical approaches to learning are revolutionizing the usefulness of AI in both software and hardware roles. In hardware the examples range from their use in enabling robots to "learn" how to ambulate across dynamic and shifting surfaces as is done by the Boston Dynamics projects, BigDog and Petman. As well , the flight dynamics of the Quadrocoptor programs seen from the University of Pennsylvania and the "catch" playing Quadrocopters from Germany demonstrate just how powerful these methods are without requiring the astonishing amounts of processing muscle that had once been believed to be required to solve these problems.
The use of hardware systems to train AI's gives us a foundation upon which to design a general artificial intelligence. We all don't own quadrocoptors and we surely don't have access to the custom designed advanced robotic skeletons of BigDog and PetMan...how could we emerge an AI on hardware that is relatively cheap to procure?
The answer is in your pocket, your smart phone is that device.
We'll first create not quite strong AI (already have) that are a bit more intelligent at pattern matching than current generation technology. The "cognitive resolution" will be improved the more sensory emulations we provide to the agents, an excellent substrate (electronic) upon which to build an AI is in your pocket right now, the smart phone. Smart phones have the ability to simulate almost every human sense...they can touch the world through their screens, they see the world through two "eyes" (front and back facing camera), they have "ears" (microphone) and a sense of balance (accelerometer), they can be equipped with air born particle detectors making them both olfactory and gustatory (smell and taste) sensors..they also go beyond us...by having sensory capabilities we don't have and that can be used to explode the cognitive dynamism of any agents we build on that substrate...such as:
Sense of GPS (for global navigation)
Sense of Bluetooth (for short distance communication)
Sense of NFC (for contact close communication)
We can conceivably add other senses as well via add on modules for example, add a SQUID device to a smart phone and one now has a very sensitive magnetometer for measuring local magnetic fields. The point is that each sensation provides a new dimension that expands the cognitive possibilities of the device should we correctly design an AGI core that can "learn" by experiencing the world through the senses we've provided to the devices.
As I explained in those earlier articles a sense of autonomic drive is critical to provide the agent with intention and a smart phone has a perfect set of internal markers for drive that can be used to modulate how the agent will select actions based on the signals it is getting from it's internal states...for example, humans have an autonomic drive to seek air with oxygen in it to breath, not so of a smart phone but a smart phone requires battery power to run. To any agent on such a phone, having power to run is a critical autonomic signalling mechanism that if keyed properly to the emotional modules we design will shape the "behavior" that emerges from such an agent as it goes through various physical cycles, we would have to do less autonomic modelling if we use the hardware limitations of the devices we build the AI in to guide the autonomic/emotional drive sub algorithm. The question remains though of how different a cognitive emergent mind would be if it has 9 "senses" instead of just 5 as we do? Does having additional cross independent sensations increase the rate of cognitive emergence? Recent work in mapping how the brain cross connects information from different regions shows that slight changes in how signals are routed can lead to interesting modulations of experience.....are these native systems aspects of a hardware based connection algorithm in the brain that is unique to humans and emerges over time as experience connects the brain together or are the pathways themselves emergent and a consequence of the continuous process of relating incoming sensory experience to stored experience?
If the former the problem of creating AGI may be most efficiently performed by modelling of AGI that already works (us) by looking in detail at the human brain. This work is being done in earnest thanks to the revolution of function MRI that has taken neuro science by storm in the last decade but it is showing us that the internal pathways connecting different regions of the brain for different sensory actions are legion. If the latter is true the problem would be much easier for it would only require that we get the correct dynamism in the emergent intelligence and let the problem of connecting regions emerge over time through experience of the world we've created for the agent by it's senses and autonomic drivers.
That said, the smart phone seems like a perfect test bed upon which to start building these algorithms and also because of it's ubiquitous nature and it's portability makes for an easy to "train" agent as it is taken about and experiences the world along with us. The "siri" assistant recently released with the Apple Iphone is a first start though it is a long way from an AGI it shows how convenient the smart phone device is as a platform for training and possibly emerging a dynamic cognitive agent using that device substrate. Along with an emotional/autonomic core that allows it to empathize with humans this closeness during the process of learning will be key to our avoiding pathological entities in my mind and having them with us all the time provides the perfect way to foster a closeness between human and artificial agent that we will want to exist to avoid any "issues".
Along the lines of my writings in this area I have stressed the critical importance for the simulation (or creation in fact) of autonomic and emotional drivers for the cognitive entity. I have asserted that absent those modules the agent would be little more than the very advanced neural network and pattern matching algorithms and solutions that are currently making a great deal of waves by being incorporated in various ways into all types of human problems. From use in machine vision to language processing to analyzing data sets (Watson) the use of pattern matching AI and in particular the use of statistical approaches to learning are revolutionizing the usefulness of AI in both software and hardware roles. In hardware the examples range from their use in enabling robots to "learn" how to ambulate across dynamic and shifting surfaces as is done by the Boston Dynamics projects, BigDog and Petman. As well , the flight dynamics of the Quadrocoptor programs seen from the University of Pennsylvania and the "catch" playing Quadrocopters from Germany demonstrate just how powerful these methods are without requiring the astonishing amounts of processing muscle that had once been believed to be required to solve these problems.
The use of hardware systems to train AI's gives us a foundation upon which to design a general artificial intelligence. We all don't own quadrocoptors and we surely don't have access to the custom designed advanced robotic skeletons of BigDog and PetMan...how could we emerge an AI on hardware that is relatively cheap to procure?
The answer is in your pocket, your smart phone is that device.
We'll first create not quite strong AI (already have) that are a bit more intelligent at pattern matching than current generation technology. The "cognitive resolution" will be improved the more sensory emulations we provide to the agents, an excellent substrate (electronic) upon which to build an AI is in your pocket right now, the smart phone. Smart phones have the ability to simulate almost every human sense...they can touch the world through their screens, they see the world through two "eyes" (front and back facing camera), they have "ears" (microphone) and a sense of balance (accelerometer), they can be equipped with air born particle detectors making them both olfactory and gustatory (smell and taste) sensors..they also go beyond us...by having sensory capabilities we don't have and that can be used to explode the cognitive dynamism of any agents we build on that substrate...such as:
Sense of GPS (for global navigation)
Sense of Bluetooth (for short distance communication)
Sense of NFC (for contact close communication)
We can conceivably add other senses as well via add on modules for example, add a SQUID device to a smart phone and one now has a very sensitive magnetometer for measuring local magnetic fields. The point is that each sensation provides a new dimension that expands the cognitive possibilities of the device should we correctly design an AGI core that can "learn" by experiencing the world through the senses we've provided to the devices.
As I explained in those earlier articles a sense of autonomic drive is critical to provide the agent with intention and a smart phone has a perfect set of internal markers for drive that can be used to modulate how the agent will select actions based on the signals it is getting from it's internal states...for example, humans have an autonomic drive to seek air with oxygen in it to breath, not so of a smart phone but a smart phone requires battery power to run. To any agent on such a phone, having power to run is a critical autonomic signalling mechanism that if keyed properly to the emotional modules we design will shape the "behavior" that emerges from such an agent as it goes through various physical cycles, we would have to do less autonomic modelling if we use the hardware limitations of the devices we build the AI in to guide the autonomic/emotional drive sub algorithm. The question remains though of how different a cognitive emergent mind would be if it has 9 "senses" instead of just 5 as we do? Does having additional cross independent sensations increase the rate of cognitive emergence? Recent work in mapping how the brain cross connects information from different regions shows that slight changes in how signals are routed can lead to interesting modulations of experience.....are these native systems aspects of a hardware based connection algorithm in the brain that is unique to humans and emerges over time as experience connects the brain together or are the pathways themselves emergent and a consequence of the continuous process of relating incoming sensory experience to stored experience?
If the former the problem of creating AGI may be most efficiently performed by modelling of AGI that already works (us) by looking in detail at the human brain. This work is being done in earnest thanks to the revolution of function MRI that has taken neuro science by storm in the last decade but it is showing us that the internal pathways connecting different regions of the brain for different sensory actions are legion. If the latter is true the problem would be much easier for it would only require that we get the correct dynamism in the emergent intelligence and let the problem of connecting regions emerge over time through experience of the world we've created for the agent by it's senses and autonomic drivers.
That said, the smart phone seems like a perfect test bed upon which to start building these algorithms and also because of it's ubiquitous nature and it's portability makes for an easy to "train" agent as it is taken about and experiences the world along with us. The "siri" assistant recently released with the Apple Iphone is a first start though it is a long way from an AGI it shows how convenient the smart phone device is as a platform for training and possibly emerging a dynamic cognitive agent using that device substrate. Along with an emotional/autonomic core that allows it to empathize with humans this closeness during the process of learning will be key to our avoiding pathological entities in my mind and having them with us all the time provides the perfect way to foster a closeness between human and artificial agent that we will want to exist to avoid any "issues".
22 February, 2012
Rough road to dynamic cognition...
With the completion of the ADA (action delta assessment) algorithm that expands Action Oriented Workflow from explicit workflow creation to implicit workflow that is inferred over time. I've laid out the sketch of an approach to building a fully dynamic cognitive agent that uses a statistical learning model as employed by ADA and that converges to stable in the emotional areas that we must ensure before building such an agent. We must safe guard against instability for two reasons, first once the cognition emerges it will learn using the model of emotions that we build into them. Emotions serve as sensory import factors that link the consistent metronome of autonomic signals to the comparison module of the brain. The comparison module consists of the linked input sensory processing regions against the stored memory (that maps to those senses).The second reason has to do with avoiding cognitive paranoia.
Avoiding paranoia
It may be easier than we think to create a constantly paranoid entity, continuously shocked by the experiences of the world. It is important that the mind can converge on and change experiences roughly at the same rate as humans or faster in order to avoid interaction difficulties on our part. Refining a theory of emotion that can be used for this model is an on going task that I am publicly debating in posts here to my blog. In previous articles I've covered the importance I feel emotion has to emerging consciousness of the type we possess and have laid out how it should be connected roughly into the cognitive machine. In this post I will talk about emotional resolution, the idea that not only is it important for us to simulate emotions (and the key autonomic drivers that essentially base line them) but we must do so with enough fidelity or resolution across each emotion to enable the nuanced experience that social animals possess that we had better build into our cognitive agents. In order for them to be desirous to work for us they will need to feel they can work with us and that won't happen if we do not build the necessary emotional resolution.
Summary of sensation
The story revealed so far on sensation is that it comes in from the world via our 5 traditional senses, gets shuttled to processing in the neocortex, is compared to stored memory of similar sensations if present from deep memory (hippocampus), is referenced for import(emotional factor, amygdala) to current autonomic signals (brain stem, medula) and then modulates action as the processed sensory bundle (it's more than "experience" so I can't call it that...and it is not what some neuroscientists call "qualia" so I can't call it that) is compared in real time to the next momentary sensory bundle...because all sensory experience requires the emotional import retrieval step and emotional import spans the space of possible sensory emotions..I believe it gives is a clue as to what we need to know to model the algorithms correctly for creating the dynamic flow of continuous states of "experience" which to me exist in the echoes of sensory comparison that occur as external sensation is essentially compared to internal sensation (autonomics) continuously.
Animal guide to emotional resolution
So to me it makes sense that as we look across animals of various cognitive complexity we always see a correlation, not between neocortical area and intelligence...that is only a loose correlate, more important is comparison of mapping between the emotional centers and the processing regions deeper in the brain. I assert smarter animals have higher resolution in being able to assign import, or autonomic meaning to compared sensation and that massively increases the space of possible reactions to sensory experience and that set of possible reactions coupled with the processing comparison (surface area of neocortex) combined are what emerge very fluid dynamic emotionally variable cognition.
Autonomic meaning is retrieved from the internal physical drives of the system, hungry or sated, in pain (internal) or in pleasure. These drives would have to be simulated in some way in order to provide a metronome upon which all the subsequent conscious emergence is clocked.
So then the question is asked why would some animals have more emotional "resolution" than others? I think the answer is clear when we examine the social sphere. Social animals were paid with survival by being able to gauge the interpersonal nuance of other members of the group, the awareness of the states of "self" (itself an illusion of the dynamic cognitive process of comparison that all individuals engage) of other beings would be enabled by being able to identify those states ...to recognize the slow brooding that leads to explosive anger or the shifts in body language that might indicate movement into estrus. Those individuals with high emotional resolution could more easily read the "shades" of import associated with the experience reports of others as they take in the world...this is obviously an evolutionarily advantageous ability in a social species and thus propagated as it conferred survival advantages. Mammals and more directly Primates were privy to quite a good deal of this type of selection as they evolved under ecological conditions of always being the underdog until after the opening of the ecological niches left empty by the extinction of most dinosaurs...forced to hide away in the brush, this planted the first seeds of social living as ....when you can't run free you've got not much choice but to stay with others like you and doing so makes it important to identify and learn from their internal states of cognition.
Thus the social revolution has fueled the cognitive dynamism that defines mammal like conscious states and using it as a model we can best create agents that are in line with the social substrate that enables us to relate in part to one another. I am still thinking if empathy needs to be formally defined in this emotional module or if it is something that itself is emergent a reflection simply of a feedback loop between current comparison and previously stored emotional import and then back to the sensory source in some way, still lots to think about but that is the next area to which I will devote more mind time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_learning_theory
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/action-oriented-workflow-maximize-your.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/12/action-oriented-workflow-emancipated.html
Avoiding paranoia
It may be easier than we think to create a constantly paranoid entity, continuously shocked by the experiences of the world. It is important that the mind can converge on and change experiences roughly at the same rate as humans or faster in order to avoid interaction difficulties on our part. Refining a theory of emotion that can be used for this model is an on going task that I am publicly debating in posts here to my blog. In previous articles I've covered the importance I feel emotion has to emerging consciousness of the type we possess and have laid out how it should be connected roughly into the cognitive machine. In this post I will talk about emotional resolution, the idea that not only is it important for us to simulate emotions (and the key autonomic drivers that essentially base line them) but we must do so with enough fidelity or resolution across each emotion to enable the nuanced experience that social animals possess that we had better build into our cognitive agents. In order for them to be desirous to work for us they will need to feel they can work with us and that won't happen if we do not build the necessary emotional resolution.
Summary of sensation
The story revealed so far on sensation is that it comes in from the world via our 5 traditional senses, gets shuttled to processing in the neocortex, is compared to stored memory of similar sensations if present from deep memory (hippocampus), is referenced for import(emotional factor, amygdala) to current autonomic signals (brain stem, medula) and then modulates action as the processed sensory bundle (it's more than "experience" so I can't call it that...and it is not what some neuroscientists call "qualia" so I can't call it that) is compared in real time to the next momentary sensory bundle...because all sensory experience requires the emotional import retrieval step and emotional import spans the space of possible sensory emotions..I believe it gives is a clue as to what we need to know to model the algorithms correctly for creating the dynamic flow of continuous states of "experience" which to me exist in the echoes of sensory comparison that occur as external sensation is essentially compared to internal sensation (autonomics) continuously.
Animal guide to emotional resolution
So to me it makes sense that as we look across animals of various cognitive complexity we always see a correlation, not between neocortical area and intelligence...that is only a loose correlate, more important is comparison of mapping between the emotional centers and the processing regions deeper in the brain. I assert smarter animals have higher resolution in being able to assign import, or autonomic meaning to compared sensation and that massively increases the space of possible reactions to sensory experience and that set of possible reactions coupled with the processing comparison (surface area of neocortex) combined are what emerge very fluid dynamic emotionally variable cognition.
Autonomic meaning is retrieved from the internal physical drives of the system, hungry or sated, in pain (internal) or in pleasure. These drives would have to be simulated in some way in order to provide a metronome upon which all the subsequent conscious emergence is clocked.
So then the question is asked why would some animals have more emotional "resolution" than others? I think the answer is clear when we examine the social sphere. Social animals were paid with survival by being able to gauge the interpersonal nuance of other members of the group, the awareness of the states of "self" (itself an illusion of the dynamic cognitive process of comparison that all individuals engage) of other beings would be enabled by being able to identify those states ...to recognize the slow brooding that leads to explosive anger or the shifts in body language that might indicate movement into estrus. Those individuals with high emotional resolution could more easily read the "shades" of import associated with the experience reports of others as they take in the world...this is obviously an evolutionarily advantageous ability in a social species and thus propagated as it conferred survival advantages. Mammals and more directly Primates were privy to quite a good deal of this type of selection as they evolved under ecological conditions of always being the underdog until after the opening of the ecological niches left empty by the extinction of most dinosaurs...forced to hide away in the brush, this planted the first seeds of social living as ....when you can't run free you've got not much choice but to stay with others like you and doing so makes it important to identify and learn from their internal states of cognition.
Thus the social revolution has fueled the cognitive dynamism that defines mammal like conscious states and using it as a model we can best create agents that are in line with the social substrate that enables us to relate in part to one another. I am still thinking if empathy needs to be formally defined in this emotional module or if it is something that itself is emergent a reflection simply of a feedback loop between current comparison and previously stored emotional import and then back to the sensory source in some way, still lots to think about but that is the next area to which I will devote more mind time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomic_nervous_system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_learning_theory
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/09/action-oriented-workflow-maximize-your.html
http://sent2null.blogspot.com/2011/12/action-oriented-workflow-emancipated.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)