DARPA Files Patent On Predictive Simulation

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has a post on a patent filed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), seeking to control a new potent predictive simulation. The patent outlines the process, which may someday allow researchers to accurately predict the behavior of observed subjects. They're not there yet, but not for lack of trying. It already works in some military war game scenarios, says the patent. 'Parunak says his model can successfully detect players' emotions, and then predict future actions accordingly. He believes the technique could one day be applied to predict the behavior of adversaries in military combat situations, competitive business tactics, and even multiplayer computer games. The patent application gives an interesting insight into DARPA's goals. The agency has pumped a lot of money into AI in recent years without reaping major rewards. One day computers may find a way to accurately second-guess humans, but I suspect we may have to wait a little longer yet.'"

Comments

Re:Riiiight...

[QuickFox]

Then you have to disclose how you did it, no? They want to disclose this.

The military people can already make predictions. They need others to make predictions too. They're sick and tired of propagandists and politicians who can't make even the simplest and most evident predictions.

The military people know, for example, that adventures like the invasion of Iraq only serve to fuel terrorism and make everything a hundred times worse. That's simple common sense. But since the propaganda machinery and the politicians lack all common sense, the military people want this predictive technology to become widespread, so that maybe someday common sense will prevail over craziness.

Re:Solution: Randomize human behaviour

[bentcd]

Even if they could predict human behavior reliably, a counter would be simply to use a dice or random number generator to determine a range of actions that one may perform. This would presumably cause you to pursue a strategy that is worse than what you otherwise would have (unless you're a really crappy strategist so that random choice outperforms conscious planning). If so, then mark that down as a victory for the prediction system.

It becomes a bit like land mines: it forces you to use a less optimal route to your target than what you would have preferred. There must be a term waiting to be coined here. Idea space denial?