Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

9 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. are you sure this is a good idea? by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Funny

    have these scientists not watched a single sci-fi movie. Military machines that can predict human behavior always lead to human enslavement. and the only way to stop them is by sending those machines back in time to stop us from building the machines in the first place.

    --
    -I only code in BASIC.-
    1. Re:are you sure this is a good idea? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you really need is a random strategy generator. "Professionals are predictable; amateurs are dangerous."
  2. Obligatory... by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 3, Funny

    Step 1: Patented behavior-prediction computer
    Step 2: Beowulf cluster
    Step 3: ???
    Step 4: Psychohistory!

  3. Prior art by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have already predicted with 100% precision that this patent will be granted.

    1. Re:Prior art by ebonum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Interesting point. In someway you have "reproduced" invention.

      For a patent to be granted, someone skilled in the art should be able to take the patent and build it.

      "The patent statute requires that the application describe the invention in its "best mode" to enable an individual skilled in the art relevant to the invention to be able to repeat the invention."

      If they can't actually build it, this SHOULD be a mute point.

  4. Re:Riiiight... by Mr2cents · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's what I didn't get: if you want to use something like that for war games, why patent it? Then you have to disclose how you did it, no? Betting that your enemy will not use this because of patent laws, is quite optimistic thinking.

    USA: Please stop using our wargame simulation technology, you're only making it worse.
    Enemy: Making it worse? How can it possibly get any worse? Coca-Cola! Coca-Cola!
    USA: And don't abuse our trademarks!

    --
    "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
  5. Re:Riiiight... by QuickFox · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  6. Re:Solution: Randomize human behaviour by bentcd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
    --
    sigs are hazardous to your health
  7. This is either great or awful by melted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Depending on the legal interpretation. On one hand as a government agency all work done by DARPA should be public domain. On the other hand they somehow managed to patent this. Does this mean that this is an anti-patent, i.e. no one else can patent this anymore and everyone can use it? Or did they find a legal loophole which could prevent everyone else from using the tech? If it's the latter, it's pretty horrible. DARPA pays for a heck of a lot of fundamental innovation each year (with taxpayer money, of course). If they start patenting it a lot of things will come to a grinding halt.

    Any lawyers on the thread?