sent2null space

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 *inno

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 t

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

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 pa

Things that Republicans support for the most part that SCIENCE and/or endless data shows are false: 1) Trickle down economics. It doesn't work...in fact it instead robs our country of potential innovation by enabling people who already have more than they need to sack away more instead of deploying that to the nation to invest in others that can innovate. 2) Maintaining the war on drugs. Does not work. All over the world examples of liberal policies on drug decriminalization or legalization have been met by *double digit* reductions in drug use and associated costs (crime), treatment costs have gone up (particularly in Portugal) but that is more than compensated by all the savings from no longer needing to actively police drug use. 3) Object to Abortion. It should be a right for every woman to chose up to the point that biologically a fetus is viable outside of the womb...period end of story...but conservatives and their insane beliefs that there are imaginary m