Category: AI, Computation, and Technology

  • GARGOYLES AND ALL THAT KINDA THING I’m not too keen on the whole Google Glass th

    GARGOYLES AND ALL THAT KINDA THING

    I’m not too keen on the whole Google Glass thing. On the other hand, if I had a video-enabled bluetooth earpiece, or lapel pin, or a pendant that communicated with my iPhone – and did the same thing, then I’d be perfectly thrilled with it.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-12 16:26:00 UTC

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROPERTY Ever since google started buying up AI firm

    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND PROPERTY

    Ever since google started buying up AI firms, I keep coming back to my previous argument that (a) humans are acquisitive, and (b) the unit of commensurability is property, (c) prices determine ‘value’ and many things are priceless, and (d) our emotions are changes in state of inventory, (e) an AI constructed in, and reasoning according to those those terms would of necessity operate as humans would.

    I think others will beat me to it. But if I lived long enough I would like to try something of that nature.

    Now, most of us who studied this topic back in the seventies, eighties and nineties understand that google has the necessary properties to create the first really superhuman AI. A “Neuromancer” scale intelligence. Because the first requisite for intelligence is memory.

    But memories must be commensurable.

    And the unit of commensurability is property.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-12 03:22:00 UTC

  • FAVORITE NEW TECHNOLOGY… 🙂

    http://opentransactions.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_PageMY FAVORITE NEW TECHNOLOGY… 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-01 06:01:00 UTC

  • OVERSING ROCKS. We make Jira look like a cobol green screen application. Ok. So,

    OVERSING ROCKS.

    We make Jira look like a cobol green screen application.

    Ok. So, not that bad. But close. 🙂

    There is absolutely nothing like Oversing on the market.

    Do you know why these companies don’t show you their apps on their web sites?

    – Microsoft Dynamics

    – Changepoint.

    – SAP

    – Tenrox

    Because they look like your father’s Chrysler from the 1980s.

    Oversing is complex. It’s deep. We’ll make it even deeper and richer.

    And in five years, if you’re in the service business, then you’ll either be using it, or something like it if we fail.

    But it’s going to change the category.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-29 13:29:00 UTC

  • UPDATE : Oversing Update : How Much Do You Want To Really Know About Your Busine

    UPDATE : Oversing Update : How Much Do You Want To Really Know About Your Business?

    (curious) (software)

    You know, we pretty much, all of us, have internalized that we have an amazing product on our hands. Sure it’s early. And it’s not like we don’t have a lot of work left to do. But it’s the kind of thing that once you use it a bit, you think that it’s SO amazing you end up asking “Why didn’t anyone do this before?”

    The flip side is different though. And it’s just beginning to dawn on me. And it’s that, are there indeed things that you do not want to know?

    For example, I designed a piece of software a very long time ago, and it was, somewhat like Oversing, so insightful into the business, that it was disturbing. For example, we could measure how much less productive smokers were. (Or rather, the data was odd and we discovered it was that smokers were running out of energy earlier in the day.)

    Now, any experienced manager knows the reality that most people cannot really do more than four to six hours of work in a day. And that the most productive people are those that simply can work longer and more consistently. Repetitious work is quite different. But only some of us can really problem solve (concentrate) for eight, ten or even fourteen hours.

    So, if Oversing provides you with so much information about your business, and so much ability to control that business, then, how do I prevent that information from being misinterpreted and misused?

    I mean Oversing is like E.S.P. for project managers. and project managers tend to be pretty good managers if they’re successful; since Project Management of time and budget and people is a pretty unforgiving specialty with pretty empirical measures. I’m more concerned about the average idiot C-level (financial types) who haven’t managed people in a creative capacity trumpeting their positivist ignorance from on high – completely unaware that what is wrong is their illusion of man, not how the employees are working.

    But, I suspect that Oversing’s various weights and measures and social scoring tell us the hidden value people provide, and that it takes time to collect all that data. So maybe we can use that.

    I guess the compensation for employees is that in exchange for making politics in the organization almost irrelevant – actually powerless, and rendering the middle management political nonsense out of existence – that the transparency to do that comes at the cost of transparency into your work too. It’s hard to argue with the truth. It’s hard to argue with transparency. But to some degree, we don’t like people to know the truth about us.

    One thing the internet has taught us though, is that while we were concerned about privacy, the fact is, that the loss of some of our privacy due to social media, educated us: we are all full of foibles and failings and once aware of that, they become meaningless both as questions of guilt for us and matters of judgement for others.

    We are all human. And transparency reminds us of that.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-09 18:18:00 UTC

  • TAXONOMIC SCHEME I was designing game engines back in the early 80’s using the s

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/01/how-netflix-reverse-engineered-hollywood/282679/NETFLIX’S TAXONOMIC SCHEME

    I was designing game engines back in the early 80’s using the same technology as were others. Obvious games like NetHack (80’s), Diablo (90’s), Borderlands (00’s) and so called ‘loot games’ use similar techniques.

    The insight that this provides is ‘serendipity’ : which is why loot games and netflix and an antique mall are interesting: the chance of finding something different.

    This goes against the apple-era inspired argument for simplicity. Simplicity is good when you want to lower access costs. But when you want to reward the user for exploring, then favoring complexity and serendipity are smarter than simplicity.

    Like the opposite sex, If it is easily understood, it’s boring.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-03 18:20:00 UTC

  • (artificial intelligence) Just had a thought. Scary cool. If I finish propertari

    (artificial intelligence)

    Just had a thought. Scary cool.

    If I finish propertarianism, it is now possible to create both an AI, and to give it moral and ethical rules that it cannot violate. It cannot violate them through self deception via self obscurantism either.

    wow…. Gotta put out a short story on that fairly quickly. Don’t have time tho.

    THAT IS IT!!!!!

    In college I wrote software that simulated an intelligent ‘tank’, using emotional rewards, and sixteen different emotions. But my problem was I just could not figure out how to tune rules for the emotions to produce the right behavior. I couldn’t come up with consistent rules……….

    Property is a consistent rule. Property=morality. But property RIGHTS are distributed among groups differently, because different groups use different property rights structures to suit needed reproductive strategies given local structures of production, and given local competitors in production.

    So like any ‘technology’ property rights are paradigmatic: the structure of production, the structure of reproduction (the family) and the structure of property rights that allow cooperation within that paradigmatic structure.

    I don’t like the paradigm argument because it’s too closely related to ‘belief’ and not closely enough related to instrumentalism.

    MORE RECENTLY – RUNCIBLE

    We were thinking of a new company using a new programming technology and spatial manifolds to store complex data. This could use existing technology even if new forms of programming.

    The problem none of us could solve was the data structure. Language is very problematic because of its complexity and loading. But, all language can be reduced to statements of property, property rights, and voluntary or involuntary transfer.

    Property is the data structure.

    PROPERTY IS THE UNIVERSAL COMPUTATIONAL DATA STRUCTURE.

    Is this the underlying problem that my subconscious autistic mind has been fighting with for decades?????????? Is this the ‘problem’ that that frustrating enormous obsessive machine in my head ‘senses’ but could not solve? That will nearly kill me if I don’t keep it fed with problems related to it?

    I know that my psychological motivation comes from a combination of obsessive autism, the need to understand, and the desire to prevent conflict.

    But …. But I think this might be what I was intuitively searching for…… I’ve been carrying this frustration for decades… and I think this is it.

    It was very smart not to rush my book this year. I am very close now to a compact argument. The last science so to speak.

    Hmmm….


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-29 07:47:00 UTC

  • We moved entirely to Oversing today, and we’re using our own product entirely. (

    We moved entirely to Oversing today, and we’re using our own product entirely. (Its fun really).


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-26 08:11:00 UTC

  • “DENORMALIZE, DENORMALIZE, DENORMALIZE” Denormalization is technology’s pagan re

    “DENORMALIZE, DENORMALIZE, DENORMALIZE”

    Denormalization is technology’s pagan religion.

    It’s an ancient religion. And current scripture ignores it.

    But paganism is much better than absolutism.

    No. Question.

    Same for software.

    (lol)


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-26 03:50:00 UTC

  • DIALECTICAL PROGRAMMING (humor) The program code that results from the ideologic

    DIALECTICAL PROGRAMMING

    (humor)

    The program code that results from the ideological conflict between front end and back end programmers.


    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-26 03:46:00 UTC