Curt Doolittle

Theme: AI

  • Non Problems In Artificial Intelligence

    As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem. (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI). (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of. (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so). (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral. (from a previous post) There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence) SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits. Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases. vs 2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence) GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally. Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry) vs 3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence) CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality. Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)

  • Non Problems In Artificial Intelligence

    As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem. (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI). (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of. (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so). (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral. (from a previous post) There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss: 1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence) SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits. Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases. vs 2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence) GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally. Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry) vs 3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence) CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality. Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)

  • NON PROBLEMS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE As far as I know, the binding problem is

    NON PROBLEMS IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

    As far as I know, the binding problem is a non problem.

    (a) there is no reason we cannot produce the three generations of artificial intelligence other than the capital investment in the hardware, and heat problems. (AI (lite, tasks), General AI, Conscious AI).

    (b) As far as I know the storage of sparse data problem is solvable and assists in the hardware and heat problem. And as far as I know operational language provides the symbols necessary to store such data, and formal language provides the input output and grammar. As far as I know the limit of imitating neurons is symbol production (semantics and grammar). As far as I know n-dimensional manifolds allow commensurability, storage, and searching of all possible concepts open to human consideration, albeit, in a geometry we cannot imagine, but which a machine can make (easy) use of.

    (c) as far as I know the “ethical/moral” AI problem is solvable through the combination of i) competition (a firmware conscience) given that hardware memory unlike wetware memory is open to continuous inspection – right down to the register level; and ii) inclusion of a title(property) dimension to all grammars. (our english grammar both explicitly and implicitly does so).

    (d) to say that we can duplicate the human mind is rather … ridiculous for the simple reason that it’s the last possible thing we should want to do- humans are amoral, and choose moral and immoral actions pragmatically. It’s just pragmatic to act morally. Man is a super-predator, and there is no value in creating an artificially intelligent super-predator. Ergo, duplicating the human mind should be at best illegal, and at worst on the part of a war crime. Instead, machines requires a means of decidability,and a symbolic system, and an auditing system, rendered in human readable grammars. And we provide it with decidability. Not amoral decidability. But moral.

    (from a previous post)

    There are three different stages of Artificial Intelligence we have to discuss:

    1) Specific Artificial Intelligence (imitation intelligence)

    SAI can perform routine tasks and do so better than people, and is bound by algorithmic limits.

    Achieved by sufficient hardware and processing speed, algorithms, and existing software and databases.

    vs

    2) General Artificial Intelligence (functional intelligence)

    GAI can solve problems and make decisions, can be bound by limits and act morally.

    Achieved by sufficient hardware, processing speed, algorithms, and I suspect new software and database structures (think video cards and geometry)

    vs

    3) Conscious Artificial Intelligence (creative intelligence)

    CAI can want, hypothesize, identify opportunities, theorize, create, invent, and learn, evolve, transcend, and circumvent limits and morality.

    Achieved by what I suspect will require new hardware and embedded software, with new software and database structures (as above)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-03 17:29:00 UTC

  • Blockchain For Direct Purchase Of Directly Tradable Shares

    There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate. Given: (a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes. (b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud. (d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system. (d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable. Therefore, 1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands. 2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans. 3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible. 4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers. 5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability. 6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today.

  • BLOCKCHAIN FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF DIRECTLY TRADABLE SHARES There are important i

    BLOCKCHAIN FOR DIRECT PURCHASE OF DIRECTLY TRADABLE SHARES

    There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate.

    Given:

    (a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes.

    (b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud.

    (d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system.

    (d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable.

    Therefore,

    1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands.

    2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans.

    3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible.

    4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers.

    5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability.

    6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-12-01 12:29:00 UTC

  • Blockchain For Direct Purchase Of Directly Tradable Shares

    There are important if not necessary uses of the blockchain (encryption ledger) technology that I want to advocate. Given: (a) Tokens, consist of nearly infinitely divisible shares,whose clearance depends upon the existence of the network, but does not involve fees by third party ‘transporters’ (intermediaries) who provide no value under electronic money substitutes. (b) Such shares have no direct voting capacity, only market value. IMO this is the only method stocks should be issued in, since in practice, there is no procedural or moral reason for ownership interest without it’s voluntary transfer by management, or involuntary transfer by the court for crimes of fraud. (d) Because clearing requires no third parties, and while clearing requires existence of the network to clear, and while that network is not state-insured (and insurer of last resort), no third party must hold temporary title to assets during clearance – meaning that no credit is issued, nor credit rating required (nor legal standing required) in order to use such a system. (d) I am certain that it is objectively immoral (fraud) to transfer debt packages for the simple reasons that warranty of subjective value (price) is not transferrable. Therefore, 1) the primary beneficiary of the use of blockchain shares for remittances will be the poor, credit-unworthy, ex-criminal, who will be free of costs – so long as the state ‘insures’ such a network. The check cashing business is the most beneficial network to replace, since payment in fractional shares requires no credit or escrow for clearance, and therefore no fees. This is a far bigger problem than the middle class understands. 2) banks that originate loans, and in fact, all loan originators, may not sell or transfer responsibility for those loans, but may sell fractional shares in any loan package. This ends the problem of third party trust in certification of the ‘quality’ of loans. 3) Public Title Registries that allow transfer and payment are far superior to the poor records kept on assets. There is no reason one does not register nearly all one’s goods. However, some defense from the state and debtors must exist, because it will lead to higher taxation, and other malincentives if openly accessible. 4) Escrow by two part, simultaneous transfer of title and property eliminates vast holding and clearing fees for asset transfers. 5) Bypassing the financial system to issue liquidity in order to increase the money supply by direct deposit to consumers is necessary but requires near perfect traceability. 6) Multiple currencies can be issued by states for different purposes the way ‘food stamps’ and ‘rent stamps’ are issued today.

  • Bitcoin Criticisms – Not The Idea, The Marketing And The Execution

    My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.

  • BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION My criticisms

    BITCOIN CRITICISMS – NOT THE IDEA, THE MARKETING AND THE EXECUTION

    My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks.

    My problems are with BTC are:

    (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model.

    (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy.

    (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks.

    (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish.

    ie: tulip bulbs.

    I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument.

    IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-30 17:17:00 UTC

  • Bitcoin Criticisms – Not The Idea, The Marketing And The Execution

    My criticisms of BTC are technical. In other words, it’s not with the idea, it’s with the money claims and the execution. If you ask david, I’ve gone into any number of applications of the technology for civic purposes. Title registries, fractional shares of credit streams, fractional shares of new business issues, replacement of check cashing services by issuing payroll that bypasses the need for redemption of checks at banks. My problems are with BTC are: (a) the limitations of the technology are unavoidable. The empirical evidence is that the user interface problem has been a failure, particularly for businesses, the processing time has been a failure, the scale problem has not been solved, the repeated thefts have not been solved, and the benefit is less than the cost of transition. The world will only accept an escrow-release model. (b) it’s dishonest if not fraudulent to present it as ‘money’ just as it’s dishonest to represent fiat money as monetary notes or commodity money, when it is nothing more than shares in the economy. (c) there is zero chance of any form of money substitute outside of the central bank system, because it would destroy the world order, and nations would go to war over it. The opposite is true: digital share development is serving as off book R&D for future government application. The future of taxation depends upon it. And the future of liquidity distribution depends upon it. Because the financial system, which evolved to distribute hard currency is now an impediment to demand generation that reorganizes the economy in response to demand changes and shocks. (d) it is fine as a speculation vehicle but it is a ponzi scheme where late players will be destroyed UNLESS a superior network ‘buys’ or ‘merges’ with BTC trading BTC (customers and their inventory) for replacement currency on a superior network. That is what will happen I’m certain. Since the BTC tech is simply … amateurish. ie: tulip bulbs. I will absolutely not fail to win any argument on these grounds. So someone needs to provide some counter to these arguments, or an alternative path that will provide it. In fact, I kind of doubt (because I have been thru the literature) that there is anyone who will put up much of an argument. IMHO the optimum use of BTC is fractional shares of highly stable assets, thereby making them available to consumers rather than institutions. Propertarianism has taught me that artificially priced debts must not be transferrable (escapable). Ergo, I would prefer banks bring in capital, and sell fractional shares in the income streams, but hold the assets. And the public would also.

  • (in response to a request for technology review)(from elsewhere) My particular a

    (in response to a request for technology review)(from elsewhere) My particular audience expects me to write about (a) artificial intelligence (b) the future of programming languages (c) digital currency and shares, (d) organizational management, and (e) the software development consulting business. They are a very high level audience, and would find it ‘odd’ or ‘disingenuous’ if I was to review and share what they would consider ‘basic’ or ‘entry level’ information. So it’s not in either of our interests. Good luck in your efforts.