Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Privacy Science Technology

DARPA Files Patent On Predictive Simulation 150

Posted by Zonk from the looking-to-the-past-for-the-future dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DARPA Files Patent On Predictive Simulation More

DARPA Files Patent On Predictive Simulation

Comments Filter:

  • Riiiight... (Score:1, Funny)

    by femto ( 459605 )

    Dr Evil: Fire up the predictive simulation! We'll know our enemy's every move before they do!

    Igor: But Dr. Evil, they have patented predictive simulators and we will be violating their patent.

    Dr Evil: Damn. Get out the toy soldiers Igor.

    • Re:Riiiight... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Mr2cents ( 323101 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:26AM (#20315659)
      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!

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by QuickFox ( 311231 )

        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 pe

        • Maybe it's for the people that would happily ignore "opinions" of high ranking military personnel, but would pray at the results from a computer...

                Calin
        • Isn't it because the 'enemy' doesn't do its own predictions by algorithms and therefore unpredictable?

        • 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...

          It's quite right that the way USA dealt with Iraq and terror suspects just creates more problems.

          I don't subscribe to the assertion that politicians do it for stupidity.

          IMHO Bush has powerful support that go beyond the two party system. Else he'd not h

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by foobsr ( 693224 )
            So it's time for chinese and eastern people, the new young and culture-less (thanks to communism) countries.

            Last time I checked, Chinese culture was said to be one of the oldest worldwide, India being close up.

            to be very paranoid i'd say USA has expired its role as young culture-less country because it has developed a kind of culture

            Kinda - to quote Hunter S. Thompson: "In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upward mobile." (more [linuxcowboy.com])

            CC.
            • I did not say China never had culture. I say that most chinese now are aiming at western lifestyle, no matter what, because it's (incorrectly?) perceived as freedom. It's the same process, but more radical, that happened in the bastardization of western countries culture to the american one.
        • Don't forget non-military applications. DARPA and other govt. research agencies often develop military technologies and then license them out to companies to develop them into local government, private sector and consumer technologies. GPS, anyone?

          Oh, BTW-- I can see police departments using something like this. Definitely
        • The military people can already make predictions. They need others to make predictions too.

          Exactly. Coincidentally, this was the reasoning behind DARPA's proposed prediction market [wikipedia.org], which would harness the "wisdom of crowds" to quantify probabilities of events. It got canceled, like all good ideas, because it offended the wrong people.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by RenderSeven ( 938535 )
            Ive always secretly believed that the NSA had this figured out decades ago, and has been quietly gaming the stock markets to fund its expansion. Thats why market volatility has increased dramatically. *Sure* those acres of supercomputer arrays are all doing code-breaking...
            • I'm not sure I understand what you're suggesting the NSA is doing. How would prediction markets allow you to have knowledge sooner than the stock market? Anyone that has an estimate of what will happen can *already* make money based on betting on this estimate, in the stock, option, and futures markets. The NSA would have no advantage over existing traders through use of prediction markets. Remember, the finacial markets are *already* prediciton markets in a sense.
            • Ive always secretly believed that the NSA had this figured out decades ago, and has been quietly gaming the stock markets to fund its expansion. Thats why market volatility has increased dramatically. *Sure* those acres of supercomputer arrays are all doing code-breaking...

              Who needs supercomputers when you have inside information from "authorized" illegal wiretaps?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jamesh ( 87723 )
        But because of the patent, if the enemy wins the war then the USA can take them to court and seek a good amount of the spoils of war in compensation. Now that lawyer would be one earning his commission!
    • Skip this paragraph, it's filler to get around pointless Slashdot filtering: I'm typing this extra, useless sentence because, apparently, the Slashdot filter is choking on the above, claiming too few characters per line (35.2). Why that's a problem with this type of dialog, I don't know. Worse, it's probably not taking into consideration the extra CRs between lines for formatting reasons. It's clear the developers are trying to think too much, and, like developers of yore, have yet to learn they are in

  • are you sure this is a good idea? (Score:5, Funny)

    by theheadlessrabbit ( 1022587 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @02:47AM (#20315477) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Znork ( 31774 )
      "have these scientists not watched a single sci-fi movie."

      Apparently they havent watched history movies either.

      The appropriate response to someone attempting to predict your behaviour is to feed their prediction algorithm false data (aka, feints, lying, etc). That way _you_ can predict _their_ behaviour, and not only that, you can even _control_ their behaviour.

      This isnt something particularly new. This is the same old thing 'but on a computer'. I expect to momentarily see another patent application for the
      • Except lying, feints etc are parts of strategy so perhaps those could be predicted too. What you really need is a random strategy generator.
        • "What you really need is a random strategy generator."

          Would a recursive strategy make it go boom? Would a "mexican stand off" freeze the input device?

          The only strategy here is "raise the signal to noise ratio", aka "FUD". I'm sure their mates who plant stories in the media can get some coverage for a bullshit (but not worthless) patent. It may be that it ends up bringing in royalties from their favoured game maker's public releases.

          I hope not, I love shoot-em-ups and think using them to train troop

        • Re:are you sure this is a good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Dragonslicer ( 991472 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @06:28AM (#20316371)

          What you really need is a random strategy generator.
          "Professionals are predictable; amateurs are dangerous."

          • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward
            This all reminds me of Isaav Asimov's "The Machine That Won The War".
            It's a story about a military computer that becomes unreliable as the battlefield data becomes less complete.
            The operator finally decides to fiddle with the data by making decisions on a coin toss. :)
            The soldiers still believe the machine is infallible, so follow the orders and win the war.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by drDugan ( 219551 )
              ... Reminds me more of Asimov's psychohistory.

              Unfortunately, the diversity of human psychology is not adequately represented in these models. Most all of the predictive models for human behavior use a single (possibly variable) model for a person, though there are several distinct archetypes for human behavior.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by yada21 ( 1042762 )

          What you really need is a random strategy generator.
          Like the one in the whitehouse?

        • Except lying, feints etc are parts of strategy so perhaps those could be predicted too.

          Man in black: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

          Vizzini: Wait 'till I get going!! ...where was I?

          Everything I ever needed to learn, I learned from The Princess Bride

  • The agency has pumped a lot of money into AI in recent years without reaping major rewards.

    Unless, of course, the AI is just holding back. Just a thought... STOP

    THIS POST BROUGHT TO YOU BY BENJAMIN 9GH55T: DARPA "PROTOTYPE" (HA!) AI

  • This seems truly idiotic and quite a bit like attempting to guess what an opponent is to do in Tic-Tac-Toe and playing accordingly to that instead of playing the the mixed Nash-solution: for although the DARPA often do clever things I can from my lack of imagination not conceive how this could be made reasonable. Given the knowledge that an opponent plays in this manner it would be trivial to play as to earn more than ones normal solution (with a trivial consequence for strictly competitive games).

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by tgv ( 254536 )
      I would like to see your solution for these equations for normal human behaviour. For some reason, I think you cannot even formulate the objective, let alone solve it. This model might be suboptimal, but that doesn't make it worse than random guessing.
      • Firstly it must be said the strategy of choosing the alternatives with equal probabilities is no way guessing, but simply playing the optimal mixed strategy, secondly there is nothing special about normal human behaviour; and if one plays the Nash-solutiuon ones opponents expected utility is bounded upwards by his Nash-solution, why he really can't do anything. I attempted to express that prediction is useless in games and that it is best simply to play the game as it is attempting to maximize ones expecte

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tgv ( 254536 )
          First: I doubt the alternatives have equal probabilities. In a real world setting, there are hundreds if not thousands of different options at any moment, most of which are highly unlikely. Second, you're not playing against a single person, but against a whole bunch of them, which changes behaviour significantly. Third, you have to take the possible actions of your allies (also a large number of individual agents) into account. That makes computing the probabilities of the joint actions and the joint distr
          • Not being a native English speaker I was unable to tell the two apart, but it is I hope obvious that I meant rock-paper-scissors and not tic-tac-toe, but perhaps less so that I by the strategy of choosing all options with equal probabilities meant the strategy of choosing all options in rock-paper-scissors with equal probabilities. Regarding the feasability issues in modeling the game properly it is true that actually solving a game completely may be infeasible, but it would in my view be better to use app
        • You assume the Nash solution works in real life. What about the travelers dilema problem? People are not "rational" and having better insight into which of many equally advantageous moves a person may make would make it easier to counter.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rtb61 ( 674572 )
          More specifically predictive simulation can be very effective but it is completely subject to the quality of information that is used for the prediction of behaviour. Any errors in the information input, and the predication fails, which in turn can lead to a very bad strategy choice ie. instead of making a sound tactical choice, an opportunistic choice is made based upon the optimal solution to the prediction not matter how unsound tactically that choice might be.

          Just another magic box solution, for when

  • If you can see the whites of their eyes.. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you're close enough to see your enemy, you should be shooting them, not waiting for a computer model to generate

  • Obligatory... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ZombieRoboNinja ( 905329 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:02AM (#20315549)
    Step 1: Patented behavior-prediction computer
    Step 2: Beowulf cluster
    Step 3: ???
    Step 4: Psychohistory! [wikipedia.org]

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bearhouse ( 1034238 )
      I thought you were going to say...

      Step 4. Scientology, (with oblig. Tom Cruise & Precog ref.)
      Step 5. Prophet!

  • Prior art (Score:4, Funny)

    by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:02AM (#20315551)
    I have already predicted with 100% precision that this patent will be granted.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ebonum ( 830686 )
      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.

  • Meh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SamP2 ( 1097897 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:07AM (#20315575)
    When a genuinely new way of doing something is patented, I don't see much of a problem. Even if you don't agree with software patents in principle, patents that introduce a new technology tend to expire before the technology matures enough to become profitable. In that case, the patent filer gets the honestly deserved upper hand of having better in-house knowledge about the technology by the time it gets to production stage, instead of having the unfair advantage of forced monopoly over its production.

    Some patents are harmful - such as those which either patent a well known technology they didn't really invent, or patentsquatting (patenting something with the only reason of preventing others from using this technology, even if you have no intention of using it yourself either), but it doesn't seem this was one of these cases.

    If the copyright system worked like the patent system (requires novelty and expires in a reasonable amount of time (~5 years)) then we'd be living in a much better world.
    • "If the copyright system worked like the patent system (requires novelty and expires in a reasonable amount of time (~5 years)) then we'd be living in a much better world."

      It would certainly stop english teachers from saying there is only really one story.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by StringBlade ( 557322 )
      I agree with your statements on patents in general, but we're talking about DARPA here...a government agency. The government is not supposed to be able to patent technologies or if they did, that would (should?) effectively make it unpatentable by private parties because the patent is collectively owned by all the taxpayers.

      As for copyrights, I don't think the same rules should apply as patents but I do think that the copyright lengths should reflect those of patents (or be even shorter since copyrights ar

    • Even if you don't agree with software patents in principle, patents that introduce a new technology tend to expire before the technology matures enough to become profitable.

      BS. While that might make since in the physical world, it's completely inappropriate for software. For example, Tim Berners-Lee published a working description [w3.org] of the Web in March 1989. From my (admittedly amateur) interpretation of patent law [uspto.gov], had he patented the concept on the same date he published that proposal, we'd still have two years to wait before it was possible to write an unencumbered web browser.

      In what way could that be rationally justified? Although he made a leap to tie the pre-exist

  • I thought the govt wasn't allowed to hold patents. What goes?
    • Actually, the government can hold patents but they can't sue anyone over them. I remember about the Dept. of Navy having a truck load of patents, but in order to play fair with their contractors they must respect patents. But of course if they patent it first then a private company can't sue the government, but the government isn't supposed to sue patent violators (or something like that).
  • Is for us to finally start acting less predictable. That would really piss them off.

  • Interesting idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by Splab ( 574204 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:25AM (#20315649)
    This is not as far fetched as one might think - if you have ever played a game like counter strike and observed the players on a public server, you can see the follow a very predictive pattern.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jamu ( 852752 )

      Bad teams are easy to predict. But take a typical game where the terrorists have to bomb one of two sites within a time limit to win, and the counter-strike team has to defend them (There are also winning conditions related to eliminating the enemy team). If the counter-terrorist side knows which way the terrorists are going to take the bomb, they gain the advantage of only having to defend one site. However, if the terrorists know which way the counter-terrorists are going to go, they can pick the bomb-sit

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Splab ( 574204 )
        Please note I said public server. Comparing the actions of a coordinated fight is like comparing the action of trained professionals in a intense situation to what Joe Public is doing.
  • 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. Perhaps I can patent "Human Behavior Randomizer". Of course if the "enemy" (oh there is always an enemy) develops counter software then some sort of infinite feedback loop could occur which could use an infinite amount of processing power and crash the known universe. Creative people can never be predicted. Human behavior can not be mu
    • Sorry thought I would just be unpredictable and reply to myself.

    • Re:Solution: Randomize human behaviour (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bentcd ( 690786 ) <bcd@pvv.org> on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @04:46AM (#20315939) Homepage

      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?

      • This would presumably cause you to pursue a strategy that is worse than what you otherwise would have
        Not really. Seems like you're considering the strategy as an independent entity - it isn't - the best strategy depends on the enemy's strategy (which depends on your strategy ... ).

        It's not like there's one perfect strategy. The worst strategy of all is the one the enemy is expecting and prepared for.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by bentcd ( 690786 )

          It's not like there's one perfect strategy. The worst strategy of all is the one the enemy is expecting and prepared for.

          Of course. But if this is a tool that will enable your enemy to consistently expect and prepare for what would /otherwise/ have been your best strategy, then this is to your detriment.

          (Of course, the tool should develop into expecting that you will avoid what would theoretically be the best strategy since you anticipate that the tool will predict this strategy, and so on and so forth. In the end, it will most likely be an expert system for helping you determine where to put your various countermeasures in

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        problem is that EVERY simulation system has it's saturation point. if you have it predicting one outcome, then let the leaders believe that outcome is what is happening and they will do stupid things that leave your second and third teams wide open to attack from behind, or they will focus on what looks like a small platoon coming in to attack the front gate while one lone bomber set's off his bomb on the secondary target.

        No computer simulation can figure out everything that will happen, embrace that and a
    • As terrorists will now start randomizing their behavior in order to defeat predictive simulation, the next edition of the "Patriot" Act will undoubtedly be to declare dice illegal and anyone in possession of them a potential threat. After all, they can be carried in a pocket and are undetectable by metal detectors. Anybody could walk on a plane with some at any time.
  • All video games infringe this patent.

    While senators are desperately seeking ways to outlaw us playing violent video games, DARPA found its way outlawing all video game once and for all.
  • That as long as the majority of the populace can be easily manipulated by fear, that countless scientists will continue to get funding by manipulating data and analysis to pander to the terrorists. And by terrorists, I mean the politicians that use the aforementioned terrorized populace, to fund their own paychecks, and the paychecks of the scientists whose only actual function is to fabricate the illusion of security.

    I just wish that I could predict what the parasitic scientists and politicians will do wh
    • populace can be easily manipulated by fear

      to fabricate the illusion of security

      These goals seem contradictory. Perhaps these are used in a repeating cycle of fear, manipulation, false security?

  • Seems that someone else got this idea earlier.

    Just see that:
    Isaac Asimov's Psychohistory [wikipedia.org]
    Is that patent valid since the prior art [wikipedia.org] arleady exists?

    /Z

  • Abstract. A method of predicting the behavior of software agents in a simulated environment involves modeling a plurality of software agents representing entities to be analyzed, which may be human beings. Using a set of parameters that governs the behavior of the agents, the internal state of at least one of the agents is estimated by its behavior in the simulation, including its movement within the environment. This facilitates a prediction of the likely future behavior of the agent based solely upon its

  • 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.

    We can run this simulation to predict what other players are going to do in a simulation.

  • I knew they were going to do that (Score:3, Funny)

    by niceone ( 992278 ) * on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @03:50AM (#20315743) Journal
    My prior art told me yesterday.
  • How effective can this really be? What if both sides have said tech? Then they both know what each other thinks that the other is doing and change tactics accordingly.
    • At the very least, it might make for an interesting scene in a movie. [imdb.com]
    • Well, if the other side knows you have it, they can already try to fool it.
      Military history is full of very intersting examples of one side building very complex missions to make the other side believe it managed to collect valuable intelligence.
    • well if the system is really that good it will predict that the other side will change tactics based the predictions of the system on the other side, then the other side will change its predictions based on that change. ultimately we will see the end of wars as everyone will be standing around not knowing what to do while these systems get stuck in an infinite loop predicting each others next prediction...

    • How effective can this really be? What if both sides have said tech?

      Both sides have men, guns, tanks, and planes now, and yet all those can still be effectively used. If the output of the simulation is "the other side will encircle our capital and fight until they've killed us all", you may not be able to do much with it.

      For a real life example, consider modern Iraq. Saddam knew America was coming and that it would invade with overwhelming force. Would he have had some advantage by a computer telling him the same thing?

  • A simple media-forged evidence that they`re doing something (Wow, it can say that you will rather bomb the factories than the AA guns and rocket launchers). Move along, nothing to see here...
  • ...a model of the agent's emotional disposition and state, ...
    16. The method of claim 1, wherein the simulation involves urban warfare.

    Well that's a no-brainer, they're pissed off!

    Seriously though this is BDE thing that novel that it can be patented? It seems like a useful algorithm, how come they can patent it?

  • Deus Ex, anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Landshark17 ( 807664 )
    Someday I'm gonna be walking around an apartment in Paris to find a computer program that greets me with a full summary of my file...
  • "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

    (Not meant as anti-anybody comment, Iraq's just the Guerre d'jour).

  • Psychohistory? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the_arrow ( 171557 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @04:57AM (#20315983) Homepage
    Someone should tell Hari Seldon his work is already done!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grahamm ( 8844 )

      Someone should tell Hari Seldon his work is already done!
      Only as long as the mechanism is good enough to predict the mule and adapt accordingly.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • This is where DARPA got the original Idea (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shohat ( 959481 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @05:29AM (#20316099) Homepage
    DARPA issues a 2 million $ challenge to build a driverless car.
    A brilliant engineer built such a car, that was able to navigate in complex environments at high speeds by predicting the size, shape and behavior of surroundings on its path through simulation, according to the behavior of similar environment and path structures it has already passed. This causes the car to actually gain speed and statistical confidence in its own upcoming actions simply by acquiring enough experience of driving in similar environment.
    Same kind of algorithm can of course be applied to any machine that is expected to operate for a long time in a complex semi-predictable environment - such as forex trading, poker, or a battlefield
    This is the story on Wired [wired.com]
  • wonder if a braod patent like this could be applied in some situations to games ... say gta?
  • You have one. So does the enemy. How about this internal dialogue in the applicance:

    - I predict X will do a, so I propose that Y should do b.
    - However, I know that X also has one of me, which will have told X that I predicted X will do a and I will have told Y to do b, so it will tell him to do c
    - Thus, I will anticipate and tell Y to do d
    - But I can now anticipate that X's machine will have predicted this and will tell him to do e, so I will again anticipate and tell Y to do e
    [repeat ad nauseam]

    Isn't infin

  • The patent outlines the process, which may someday allow researchers to accurately predict the behavior of observed subjects.

    Presumably it will only allow some researcher to predict behavior. Researchers who lack the money or clout to license the patent won't have the legal ability to make predictions using this technology.

    I hate government patents.

  • ... and ideal basis for an unbeatable poker bot.

    Vegas here I come!

  • Theory of mind (Score:2, Insightful)

    by AttilaSz ( 707951 )
    Folks likening this to Harry Seldon's psychohistory in Isaac Asimov's books are missing the point. Psychohistory was predicting the movements of a society as a whole. What DARPA is striving to do is predict the behaviour of individuals faster than those individuals can act.

    An "obvious" method for doing this is to somehow capture the individual's state vector and that of its surrounding environment, and simulate it in faster than realtime. Stuff of science fiction for now, and it is usually referred to as po
    • You're right that this really has nothing to do with psychohistory. Interestingly enough, it actually is similar to was the "personailty simulator" mentioned by Frank Herbert in the Dosadi Experiment and the other books set in the Consentiency universe. These could be used to predict the reactions of an individual, given enough data about them. It thus became of paramount importance to keep certain information about yourself either secret, or to seed your opponents simulation with incorrect information.

      He

  • I for one... (Score:2, Funny)

    by s-gen ( 890660 )
    *spit* on our new behaviour predicting overlord.

    Dang it.

    How did it manage to dodge that?
  • I don't understand... when did it become possible to patent something that the applicant doesn't actually have the ability to build?
  • I vaguely recall some Asimov series (one of his better known ones, IIR) that deals with the ability to predict group behavior quite successfully through some sort of psychology. It seemed to evolve into some kind of "future guessing" where he warns of a messianic figure or something. Assuming my memory is anywhere near what I think I'm referring to, it's an interesting case of life imitating art...

  • The prediction of this mechanism is predicated on the fact that the subjects being observed are not aware of the observer. The mere fact of observing may change the outcome of the objects' behaviour. Now, thanks to the slahdot effect, this mechanism & its patent will be rendered useless.
     
  • The CTs are hacking!

  • Various research units of the Dept of Defense have been funding this sort of thing since the 1940s, with a lot of serious mathematical work on game theory [wikipedia.org] and, a bit later, a lot of computer simulation work with systems dynamics [wikipedia.org]. And those are just the big topics; there are plenty of little ones as well. They backed off a lot of this in the 1980s, partly because of a feeling that the methods had been pushed as far as they could go, partly in response to Reagan-era ideologues who wanted to remove anything re

  • This is either great or awful (Score:4, Insightful)

    by melted ( 227442 ) on Wednesday August 22, 2007 @09:50AM (#20318353) Homepage
    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?
  • The forces of coercion and aristocratic statism cannot be allowed to prevail. The world they would create would crush the soul of humanity and bring progress to a grinding stop.

    Throwing sand in the gears of this predictive machine means getting weird people.

    Date your livestock, but only if you live in an apartment. Borrow a friend's supermarket membership card to do your shopping. Use your own card to make suspiciously large purchases of anchovies, motor oil, bird seed and tampons. Stick macaroni in your ca
  • We screw around in Middle Eastern politics for decades. The various factions resident there get pissed. They retaliate against us using various forms of violence.

    I figured that out all by myself, No AI or DARPA grant required.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close