How long before someone *patents* 'genuine people personalities'?
The trend to award patents for methods, algorithms, gene sequences and similar things which could be argued as natural phenomena is alarming. My suscinct read on this is that this fellow has garnered a patent on nothing but labeled to maximise attention to it.
(1) His assertion that he has codified or defined ethics with an alogrithmic implementation is laughable.
(2) I'll bet he doesn't *have* an implementation. Just some fscking diagrams (as required for patents).
(3) If he can [really] codify and implement something as ephemeral as 'ethics' in AI software, he should already be raking mega-bucks and the admiration of the masses with the product of his Nobel-prize winning genius... solving the problems of hunger and war and disease with his stunningly crafty AI's. But no, he's just another fame-grubbing opportunist trying to capitalise on a patenting some aspect of a concept whose basis has been in dispute since philosophers first began debating anything.
He doesn't intend to create new, ground-breaking AI systems. He intends to (a) stake his claim to fame (b) get someone to fund some pretense of research and/or (c) extort funds from future AI developers whose actual works might infringe his wonderful patent.
Jeeze. This patent stuff is getting absurd.
[Off Topic]:
"Here, here" should be "Hear, hear" as in heralding or verbally broadcasting support for something that another has said.
Like saying "Listen to what this person has to say!"
[On Topic]:
Must graphics drivers necessarily be 'linked to the kernel' and result in setting the 'taint flag' as others have discussed here? Why can't the driver simply be a part of a dynamic library or similar (I probably showing my Linux ignorance here, so be gentle)?
Slashdot Mirror
How long before someone *patents* 'genuine people personalities'? The trend to award patents for methods, algorithms, gene sequences and similar things which could be argued as natural phenomena is alarming. My suscinct read on this is that this fellow has garnered a patent on nothing but labeled to maximise attention to it. (1) His assertion that he has codified or defined ethics with an alogrithmic implementation is laughable. (2) I'll bet he doesn't *have* an implementation. Just some fscking diagrams (as required for patents). (3) If he can [really] codify and implement something as ephemeral as 'ethics' in AI software, he should already be raking mega-bucks and the admiration of the masses with the product of his Nobel-prize winning genius... solving the problems of hunger and war and disease with his stunningly crafty AI's. But no, he's just another fame-grubbing opportunist trying to capitalise on a patenting some aspect of a concept whose basis has been in dispute since philosophers first began debating anything. He doesn't intend to create new, ground-breaking AI systems. He intends to (a) stake his claim to fame (b) get someone to fund some pretense of research and/or (c) extort funds from future AI developers whose actual works might infringe his wonderful patent. Jeeze. This patent stuff is getting absurd.
[Off Topic]: "Here, here" should be "Hear, hear" as in heralding or verbally broadcasting support for something that another has said. Like saying "Listen to what this person has to say!" [On Topic]: Must graphics drivers necessarily be 'linked to the kernel' and result in setting the 'taint flag' as others have discussed here? Why can't the driver simply be a part of a dynamic library or similar (I probably showing my Linux ignorance here, so be gentle)?