1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Gizmo invent Gizmo. The State of the Art in 1999, today and thefuture. submitted by Mr Ian Martin Aj

Discussion in 'Embedded' started by iajzenszmi, Nov 27, 2008.

  1. iajzenszmi

    iajzenszmi Guest

    I have submitted the following article from the New York Times to
    stimulate interest and activity.

    November 25, 1999
    WHAT'S NEXT; When a Gizmo Can Invent a Gizmo
    By ANNE EISENBERG

    IF Dr. Frankenstein's monster had published a best seller, who would
    have gotten the rights to that intellectual property?

    His inventor up in the castle, of course.

    Tough luck for the monster, but these are still early days for
    intellectual property rights for thinking machines. No one has
    seriously proposed that a computer should receive a share of the
    profits from an invention -- at least not yet. But other problems
    related to the ownership of items invented by computers are already
    being debated in preparation for the time, probably in about 10 years,
    when such inventions will be commonplace, said David E. Goldberg, an
    engineer and a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
    Champaign.

    Computers are already making inroads in the area of intellectual
    property as they design antennas, gas turbines and integrated
    circuits. Much of the work in this field of automatic discovery is
    preliminary and a lot of it is proprietary and therefore secret, but
    what can be seen provides tantalizing glimpses of a future in which
    computers work day and night -- no breaks for lunch -- to come up with
    original solutions with very little help from their programmers.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...15752C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
     
    iajzenszmi, Nov 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. iajzenszmi

    Ed Prochak Guest

    Computers might be programmed to explore a range of parameters for a
    design, but that is NOT DESIGN.

    two key quotes:

    1. <q> Dr. Koza and his colleagues have been creating electrical
    circuits using evolutionary computing. ''We recognize when these
    circuits infringe upon existing patented circuits because we know the
    existing circuits as textbook inventions,'' he said. ''But in our
    hundreds of runs, we've probably already invented many other circuits
    but haven't yet spotted them.'' </q>

    IOW the human seems to be making the final decision.

    2. <q> Many inventions in the future will routinely be handled by
    computers. ''No one would think of building a skyscraper with
    thousands of workers,'' Dr. Goldberg said. ''Similarly, no one will
    think about solving a problem without getting the magnitude of
    intellectual leverage that is similar to the mechanical leverage of
    the steam engine.'' </q>

    No one says that because we use cranes to build a building that the
    cranes designed the building.

    The real problem is this is all about the legal issue. Companies
    already own the patents derived from their engineers' inventions. Now
    they want to extend that reach to anyone's work that uses their
    computers and software. It is only a question of how much greed the
    legal system will allow.
     
    Ed Prochak, Nov 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. iajzenszmi

    Mel Guest

    As long as humans are the consumers, it will stay like this. Machines
    designing and building products for other machines to buy is sci-fi
    territory: Stanislaw Lem or John Sladek. Sladek's _Mechasm_ is more openly
    hilarious, but it has society saved from the runaway system. In Lem's
    comedies, the system has become society.

    Earlier this year Slashdot or some such mentioned a piece of research that
    could have been Dr. Koza's. Somebody was using genetic methods to develop
    an FPGA program for image recognition. The winner showed definite signs of
    alien design:
    - when the program was copied into another FPGA chip, it didn't work.
    - on examination, the program included clusters of interconnected gates with
    no obvious connection to the inputs or outputs. Reminiscent of junk DNA,
    except that if they were changed, the program stopped working.

    Changing the margins of gates by drawing current in nearby circuit
    bits?? ??? Some newby designs brought to comp.arch.embedded show this kind
    of unearthly brilliance. (Mind you, however bad this would be in a
    product, it's very interesting as a research result.)

    Maybe because I'm more firmly stuck in the software side than others in
    c.a.e I'm more impressed by things like this. It seems that right now
    we're seeing the results of society taken over by a runaway system for
    producing esoteric financial instruments of no use to anyone but the system
    itself. On the one hand, the BBB tranche of a CDO re-securitized and
    re-sliced for sale as AAA, AA, A, BBB grade securities; on the other an
    irreproducible FPGA program that works for no recognizable reason. Anybody
    see a difference? I/O bandwidth, maybe.

    Mel.
     
    Mel, Nov 28, 2008
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.