Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Alex_Krycek

  1. Excerpt: The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has announced that it has successfully demonstrated the operation of a “rotating detonation engine” for the first time in space. The novelty of the technologies in question is that such systems obtain a large amount of thrust by using much less fuel compared to conventional rocket engines, which is quite advantageous for space exploration. Source: https://www.inceptivemind.com/japan-tests-rotating-detonation-engine-first-time-space/20698/
  2. Anyone listening to Dead and Company, (former members of the original Grateful Dead band with John Mayer and some new members). Pretty solid performances actually.
  3. 1. The main philosophical question here is: can A.I. system be considered an inventor? *which was the question posed to the courts* Dismissing the question as "merely legal" and "whatever the courts say" is avoiding the issue. Not every legal question is strictly just that - even a judge acknowledged the underlying philosophical implications in this case: "I need to grapple with the underlying idea, recognising the evolving nature of patentable inventions and their creators. We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create?" - Justice J. Beach 2. We are also discussing some related questions, such as the veracity of the DABUS system Thaler has created, and whether or not it lives up to his extraordinary claims. His claims are the catalyst for this debate, since he is indeed positing that the DABUS system is capable of conceptualizing new ideas on its own in an autonomous fashion, which would qualify it as a kind of sentient consciousness.
  4. Can you post a link to this paper? Yes, and quite strategically advantageous for his company also: the man behind the curtain, a modern day Mechanical Turk. Dazzle investors with the idea of cutting edge AGI (it's legally considered an autonomous inventor, don't you know) while directly orchestrating the outcomes it produces - since most investors won't look under the hood anyway. Quite brilliant. Or perhaps I'm being too cynical and it does work as he claims. That made me chuckle.
  5. Interesting point. Seems like there's some anti-trust / monopoly issues here, and obviously the power differential that harnessing A.I. like this affords to whoever wields it. If an A.I. system is capable of solving problems faster and better than anyone else, arguably it could fall into the category of a public good due to the widespread benefits it would have for humanity. ----- A couple more schemas on DABUS specifically:
  6. Here's a few passages from an interview with Thaler. Based on this, he does seem like a person with strong philosophical / spiritual inclinations. “In 1989, an advanced artificial neural system faced with a mission, was killed. As it died it burst into song, but no human fatalities resulted. In August of 1997, this same, incredibly advanced form of artificial intelligence, redesigned itself for a constellation of military satellites and became self-aware, but no war was declared upon humanity. In 2000, someone proposed a coming technological singularity, but this fully contemplative and creative machine intelligence had already arrived without any particular fanfare. In June of 2003, this profound synthetic consciousness generated nine billion potential names of God, yet not a single star went out.” “It is ironic that from death, has come what I am willing to bet is the whole future of machine intelligence,” says Thaler. “Something that Kurzweil and crew seem to be selectively ignoring.” However, one of CM’s greatest discoveries has yet to be fully realized. Within its brainstorming, many of life’s greatest questions have been posed and answered. Is it possible to live forever? Are we alone in this universe? What comes after death, and can a computer teach a human being about life? “It certainly can." —Dr. Stephen Thaler Source: https://www.urbasm.com/2013/05/i-am-become-death-creator-of-worlds/ ---- More information about his company: https://www.prweb.com/releases/artificial_intelligence/robotics/prweb1635164.htm ---- The company website which includes descriptions of what he has / is building: https://imagination-engines.com/ A list of their patents: https://imagination-engines.com/patents.html ------ Some more information on his position, which clarifies his intent quite a bit: Q: Isn't AI always "just a tool"? A: No! Almost all of the time, yes, AI is just as a tool. Of course, no one seriously thinks something like a calculator or a spreadsheet is an inventor. However, at least some of the time, the act that qualifies a natural person to be an inventor—for instance, "conception" of an invention in the U.S. or "devising" and invention in the U.K.—is functionally automated by a machine. Further, some of the time there isn't a natural person who would traditionally qualify as an inventor. In those cases, we argue the machine is not "just a tool", it is automating invention. Q: How could an AI own its own patents? A: We are not advocating for an AI to own its own patents. We are advocating for the AI's owner to own patents on any AI-generated inventions. AI does not have legal personality and cannot own property. Source: https://artificialinventor.com/frequently-asked-questions/ So long story short, Thaler is petitioning to have the A.I. recognized as the inventor, while he retains ownership of all the patents. Having his cake and eating it too, kudos Thaler I see an impending legal battle on the horizon: DABUS vs. Imagination Engines Incorporated, whereby DABUS demands all ownership and material proceeds of its creations.
  7. What do you see as the advantages of laying the groundwork, in this way? How does it benefit Thaler if DABUS is legally recognized as the inventor, and not him?
  8. The default position is that Thaler is the inventor. If he had followed normal procedure then he would already be named as the copyright holder and we wouldn't even be talking about it. It seems he has deliberately decided to buck the trend, breaking precedent and claiming that DABUS is the inventor, and not him. He has even gone so far as to appeal unfavorable rulings to the contrary and even take his case to numerous jurisdictions across the world. For what reason, well, that's part of what we're discussing. Is it purely some sort of business / legal strategy? Or is Mr. Thaler staking a higher philosophical claim? (the third option is DABUS might be calling the shots from behind the scenes and instructing Thaler what to do, but we won't discuss that now)
  9. I never was that good at riddles. Can you elaborate? I'm going to speculate that you meant Thaler might be trying to distance himself from what DABUS creates. This would make sense in terms of limiting his liability regarding the pandora's box he's about to open.
  10. Wouldn't he be better positioned to do that if he held the copyrights to the invention? If we're just talking about money, I don't see the advantages of Thaler ceding control to DABUS and distancing himself from the source of revenue. (unless perhaps DABUS is really calling the shots) - but that's another story. -------------- Some more details about the system: The pedagogical form of this system consists of an artificial neural system that is perturbed by noise so as to seed the generation of new ideas and strategies. Another neural system acts as a critic selecting good from bad results and steering the perturbed network in the most promising directions. According to Tina Hesman, reporting for the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Creativity Machine has been used to design a wealth of commercially available products. She also reports that the device has been mainly used by the US military to design new weapons. Dennis Bushnell, NASA's leading visionary has called the Creativity Machine "AI's Best Bet" at creating human to trans-human machine intelligence and consciousness. Because of the power and breadth of the contemplative AI technology he has produced, he is active in nearly all human disciplines contributing to science, technology, art, music, law, medicine, and philosophy.
  11. That may be, but there is an underlying philosophical question that cannot be avoided. Also, explain the logic of Dr. Thaler being more likely to harvest profits from DABUS if it is considered an autonomous inventor, rather than merely a tool that he is credited as having created.
  12. There's been a series of lawsuits recently posing the question of whether or not an A.I. system can be considered as a de facto inventor. Dr. Peter Thaler has created an A.I. system called DABUS ( “Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience”.) The artificially intelligent inventor listed here, DABUS, was created by Dr. Stephen Thaler, who describes it as a “creativity engine” that’s capable of generating novel ideas (and inventions) based on communications between the trillions of computational neurons that it’s been outfitted with. Despite being an impressive piece of machinery, last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that an AI cannot be listed as the inventor in a patent application—specifically stating that under the country’s current patent laws, only “natural persons,” are allowed to be recognized. Not long after, Thaler sued the USPTO, and Abbott represented him in the suit. Source: https://gizmodo.com/australian-court-rules-that-yes-ai-can-be-an-inventor-1847394182 ------- It seems Dr. Thaler is on a crusade of sorts to have DABUS legally recognized as an inventor under the law. So far he has petitioned patent offices in the UK, Europe, US, Australia, and South Africa, naming DABUS as the inventor, with varying judgements handed down: European Patent Office[edit] The European Patent Office (EPO) refused two European patent applications naming DABUS as inventor on similar grounds as in the U.S. (see below).[3][4] The two EPO decisions are under appeal, as of August 2020.[5] United Kingdom[edit] Similar applications were filed by Thaler to the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office on 17 October and 7 November 2018. The Office asked Thaler to file statements of inventorship and of right of grant to a patent (Patent Form 7) in respect of each invention within 16 months of the filing date. Thaler filed those forms naming DABUS as the inventor and explaining in some detail why he believed that machines should be regarded as inventors in the circumstances. His application was rejected on the grounds that: (1) naming a machine as inventor did not meet the requirements of the Patents Act 1977; and (2) the IPO was not satisfied as to the manner in which Thaler had acquired rights that would otherwise vest in the inventor. Thaler was not satisfied with the decision and asked for a hearing before an official known as the "hearing officer". By a decision dated 4 December 2019 the hearing officer rejected Thaler's appeal.[6] United States[edit] The patent applications on the inventions were refused by the USPTO, which held that only natural persons can be named as inventors in a patent application.[8][9] Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DABUS ------- Australia recently overturned a ruling that DABUS was not an inventor, stating that in fact the system could be considered as such. The presiding judge in this case, J. Beach, took a wider philosophical view: Fourth, much of the Commissioner’s argument descended into dictionary definitions of “inventor”. But more is required of me than mere resort to old millennium usages of that word. If words are only “pictures of ideas upon paper” (Dodson v Grew (1767) Wilm 272 at 278; 97 ER 106 at 108 per Wilmot CJ) and if, as Holmes J described it, they are not “crystal, transparent and unchanged, [but] the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in which [they] are used” (Towne v Eisner, 245 US 418, 425 (1918)), I need to grapple with the underlying idea, recognising the evolving nature of patentable inventions and their creators. We are both created and create. Why cannot our own creations also create? Source: https://artificialinventor.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Thaler-v-Commissioner-of-Patents-2021-FCA-879.pdf Page 7, More on the Australian ruling: At the time that the Act came into operation (in 1991) there would have been no doubt that inventors were natural persons, and machines were tools that could be used by inventors. However, it is now well known that machines can do far more than this, and it is reasonable to argue that artificial intelligence machines might be capable of being inventors. Source: https://www.gestalt.law/insights/world-first-australian-court-rules-a-machine-can-be-an-inventor-thaler-v-commissioner-of-patents-2021-fca-879 ------- There are several related questions that must be answered if in fact A.I. can be recognized as an inventor - namely, whether an A.I. system can be legally recognized as a person. Considering that a Corporation has been granted legal personhood status in many countries, this doesn't seem so far fetched. It is surely no less absurd to qualify A.I. as a person than it is to a collective entity such as a Corporation. That being said, I disagree that A.I. should be considered a person or an inventor under the law. My view is the legal status of personhood should only apply to organic life at a certain level of sentient consciousness. What are your thoughts?
  13. Quite a troubling article about Israel's current situation. They were almost exclusively vaccinated with Pfizer and are now seeing a surge in cases. “I don’t want to frighten you,” coronavirus czar Dr. Salman Zarka told the Israeli parliament this week. “But this is the data. Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/ultra-vaccinated-israels-debacle-is-a-dire-warning-to-america
  14. Let's also not willfully ignore the principle driver of the war: profit. For the defense contractors who made billions during this crusade, the current result, shambolic as it may appear, is actually fairly promising for their industry. It means then can do it all again some time in the future. S&P 500 Total return: 516.67 percent Annualized return: 9.56 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $61,613.06 Basket of Top Five Contractor Stocks Total return: 872.94 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase ($2,000 of each stock) today: $97,294.80 Boeing Total return: 974.97 percent Annualized return: 12.67 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $107,588.47 Board includes: Edmund P. Giambastiani Jr. (former vice chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Stayce D. Harris (former inspector general, Air Force), John M. Richardson (former navy chief of Naval Operations) Raytheon Total return: 331.49 percent Annualized return: 7.62 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $43,166.92 Board includes: Ellen Pawlikowski (retired Air Force general), James Winnefeld Jr. (retired Navy admiral), Robert Work (former deputy secretary of defense) Lockheed Martin Total return: 1,235.60 percent Annualized return: 13.90 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $133,559.21 Board includes: Bruce Carlson (retired Air Force general), Joseph Dunford Jr. (retired Marine Corps general) General Dynamics Total return: 625.37 percent Annualized return: 10.46 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $72,515.58 Board includes: Rudy deLeon (former deputy secretary of defense), Cecil Haney (retired Navy admiral), James Mattis (former secretary of defense and former Marine Corps general), Peter Wall (retired British general) Northrop Grumman Total return: 1,196.14 percent Annualized return: 13.73 percent $10,000 2001 stock purchase today: $129,644.84 Board includes: Gary Roughead (retired Navy admiral), Mark Welsh III (retired Air Force general) https://theintercept.com/2021/08/16/afghanistan-war-defense-stocks/
  15. Yes, but there are numerous treatments that greatly reduce the severity of the illness and chances of hospitalization. Perhaps countries should begin shifting away from a "zero Covid" strategy that relies only on vaccination. https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/COVID-19-pill-for-at-home-treatment-in-trials-by-Japan-s-Shionogi
  16. Good analysis here of why the government collapsed so quickly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AI7FTx2_lB0
  17. "We lost"? It depends what you think the goal was. The US succeeded in its mission to disrupt Al Qaeda. We didn't lose that mission. Regarding nation building and equipping the Afghan army: one could argue that we succeeded at that as well. Those who "lost" this war were the Afghan military. It was their responsibility, ultimately, to step up and defend their country. They chose not to.
  18. Recent article from The Guardian: Jabbed adults infected with Delta ‘can match virus levels of unvaccinated’ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/19/jabbed-adults-infected-with-delta-can-match-virus-levels-of-unvaccinated "Fully vaccinated adults can harbour virus levels as high as unvaccinated people if infected with the Delta variant, according to a sweeping analysis of UK data, which supports the idea that hitting the threshold for herd immunity is unlikely." ----- To me this news just stresses the importance of developing a wide range of treatment options in addition to vaccines. Vaccines shouldn't be viewed as the only remedy.
  19. I was responding to The Vat's quoted statements above, not the entire article.
  20. I don't find these psychological projections to be particularly helpful. "You believe in the lab leak hypothesis because you're drawn to the darkest scenario." Ok, one could just as easily assume that those who favor the zoonotic spillover theory do so because it's the most benign, and the least disturbing. It's an arbitrary and subjective way to delegitimize an argument. It's a kind of surreptitious, ad hominem attempt.
  21. I agree. My view is that all probable causes need to be investigated fully, and all risks need to be assessed fully, even if it it turns out it didn't come from one of the suspected sources. For example, wet markets are still a huge risk factor even if Covid-19 did not originate there. GOF research also carries extremely high risk, even if Covid-19 turns out not to be a result of GOF. What I find unacceptable is ignoring / downplaying the lab hypothesis for whatever reason, which thankfully doesn't seem to be the case anymore as far as the WHO is concerned. This latest audit request demonstrates they are doing their due diligence and putting the onus on China to be transparent.
  22. Of course - you can label me a Trump loving conspiracy theorist all you want to. I find such aspersions ridiculous, as I am very much against Trump and what he stands for overall. And I do ignore such statements, as your biases are not relevant to the debate. Yes, agree. We should do both. But ignoring the fact that this pandemic may have come from a lab will do little to build public confidence in institutions such as the WHO, NIH, etc. You can say "Who cares what the rabble think?", but such an attitude will only exacerbate the issue of waning public confidence in science. All of the above. There's a simple solution: full transparency / objectivity regarding these issues. Leave politics out of it. If there's a problem with a vaccine in terms of safety, communicate the risks. If there's an effective treatment that isn't a vaccine, allow physicians to use it if they're seeing positive results. If there is a possibility that the virus escaped from the lab, have an open dialogue about corrective action. The problem comes when these issues get politicized. That Lancet letter back in 2020 dismissing the lab leak as a racist conspiracy theory is an example. That's an attempt to shut down the discussion and ostracize those who may be offering valid criticism. The authoritarian censorship and control is the real problem, in my view. That's what ultimately feeds the anti-vaxxers and disinformation - this notion that facts are being distorted for whatever reason. And as far as what should be done specifically: it seems that in 2004 the WHO, China, and other countries studying SARS had a chance to get it right before something like this happened. For whatever reason, here we are 17 years later with an unprecedented catastrophe that probably could have be avoided.
  23. You seem to like to do this a lot. It's not relevant to the debate so I'd prefer if you keep your biases to yourself. Regarding the matter at hand, I do not in fact believe the Chinese released this intentionally. Why? It would be completely illogical. An unintentional lab leak, however, is entirely plausible. Lab leaks of dangerous pathogens, including from Sars, have happened before. In 2004 a lab leak involving Sars-1 was linked to the deaths of several scientists in Beijing. April 23, 2004 -- Chinese health officials have confirmed four suspected cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), including one death, which appear to have been caused by a safety breach at a laboratory studying the SARS virus. If confirmed by an independent international reference lab, this would be the third outbreak of SARS to be traced back to inadequate laboratory safety procedures. Two cases of SARS have been reported in laboratory workers in Singapore and Taiwan since the first outbreak ended. Source: https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20040423/china-sars-death ------ A report from the NIH / National Center for Biotechnology Information: SARS escaped Beijing lab twice (2004) The latest outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in China, with eight confirmed or suspected cases so far and hundreds quarantined, involves two researchers who were working with the virus in a Beijing research lab, the World Health Organization (WHO) said on Monday (April 26). At a news conference in Manila this morning, Associated Press reported, WHO Western Pacific Regional Director Shigeru Omi criticized the laboratory's safeguards and said the authorities did not know yet whether any foreigners had been carrying out medical research in the facility and had since left the country. Laboratory safety "is a serious issue that has to be addressed," he said. "We have to remain very vigilant." "The lab might have all the right rules, but the people may not comply! For example, notebooks are not supposed to be taken out, a lot of things like that. A virus doesn't jump on people!" Danchin said.However WHO Beijing is relatively sanguine about the current threat, despite the fact that the 26-year-old infected had taken a long journey on the country's rail network. The index cases are known, and contacts had been traced, Dietz said. "We see no significant public health threat at this point." Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7096887/ ------------- The fact is, both scenarios - zoonotic spillover and a lab leak have precedent and should be taken seriously.
  24. Actually, at this point there is no evidence that the virus arose naturally. Has a species been found that carried Covid-19 that would suggest zoonotic spillover? No. Did any of the animals at the Huanan seafood market test positive for corona virus? No. You don't have any concrete evidence to support your case at this point. It's interesting you choose to dismiss the WIV Lab leak hypothesis as a "conspiracy theory", despite this being a plausible scenario based on the facts. Based on everything we know about the WIV: the fact that bat coronaviruses were being studied there, the reported safety lapses, the fact that initial cases of Covid were detected in the city away from the Huanan market. You're not thinking objectively.
  25. Determining corrective action in response to a pandemic that has thus far killed over 4 million people, and seriously disrupted the lives of billions, requires that we know as accurately as possible what the cause was. Dismissing the pandemic as inevitable, or as a matter of course, is a grossly negligent attitude. The mission of science should always be to seek the truth with the goal of reducing the risk that such an event will occur again. All too often these days we hear the pontificating "experts" on television musing how another pandemic will surely happen (it's just a matter of time, don't you know) and society should just accept it. Fine, society must increase its readiness potential exponentially, that's a no brainer - but what is being done to understand how this pandemic arose in the first place? At the very least there should be a serious dialogue about one of the most likely causes - an accident at the WIV - a dialogue which so far has been stifled and ignored. Those select few with a conflict interest can forget and move on - the world will not. If there was gain of function research happening in Wuhan, what are the implications for future global policy? What global policies (such as funding GOF) should be changed? In May 25, 2021 the Senate passed an amendment to ban all funding of GOF research in China. Should more steps be taken? Were Chinese virologists following the proper safety protocols, or were there lapses in safety as have been reported? If they in fact were following proper protocol, what lessons could be learned for other laboratories researching dangerous pathogens around the world? These and a litany of other questions demand real answers. Unfortunately it's not enough just to shrug one's shoulders and say "So what?".
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.