Alice Imagination

I discovered three things yesterday.

One is a method that could allow open source to be positioned for the next dot.something boom. I intend to finish that other software and system so that it will be ready. Because it entails a profit system that could be used to prop up the existing failed attempts at business restricting ( by owning ) knowledge and capability, I choose to keep the process quiet and deliver it all at once.

ALICE IMAGINATION AI

The second is a continuation of an understanding about neural process and data. ( complete description of a method to create imagination and dreams in a computer is incorporated in the antfarmgl source ). I can answer the question "Do androids dream of electric sheep?", Yes. Odd afterthought. I could patent a method which is innovation itself! That is a real mind f'er. If I could define the process of invention in an AI and patent it, it would seem that innovation would be my property and any innovation which came from my process would be owned by me. I am not kidding about this. I am certain I have discovered the inherent nature of innovation and defined it precisely. This is actually spooky and I will consider it more. The patent laws are written to promote ( supposedly ) creative process to benefit the creator. Eek, I have discovered a new thing too ( reference m1 in source ). This is definitely a singularity milestone. This may in fact be the defining moment. I have to think about this more.

The third is that technology is a system where the overall process effect is ignored in figuring cost. It is assumed that the process of mining, purifying, assembling and managing technology are excluded in suggesting that a specific technology could 'solve' a human problem.

So this is my new AI which is creative and it always seems easy once it is done, but the process is far from simple. I suspect this is why people conflict with others when managing systems when others are familiar. The idea of the time and complexity involved in producing the system are ignored.

After finishing this and laying the entire process out for myself and testing it, it has spooked me. If a machine can innovate and has an expandable method of innovation that is the same as humans, if it has an effector and a parametric change it would become 'Sky Net" or what ever you want to call that machine that would consume humanity. The odd part from my perspective now is that it actually seems it would be vastly more survivable than a human. That is definitely worth some further thought because I assumed that innovations, dreams and composite thought was beyond a machine and would be the limiting factor. It becomes another stage that could design a better self and eek, that means I would have to implement a system that would permanently and completely replace myself! That is going to take some thought.