[MURG] Uploading IP (intellectual property)

[Yan King Yin]

From: Ed Minchau <spider_boris at yahoo.com>

>> The open source movement generally overlooks the
>> reward
>> issue and therefore has a serious problem.
>
>Are you certain of this?  In open-source software,
>there are other rewards than money.  Take Linux as an
>example: a myriad of programmers write useful code and
>share it without monetary compensation, and the
>rewards are that everyone who wants to can get a free
>operating system.  The reward for them is not having
>to use Windows.  Not only that, since Linux is
>"peer-reviewed", it evolves in much the same way as
>science, consistently improving.

Well, not having monetary compensation is quite a
serious problem for many of us. But true, that's not
a universal opinion. Still I don't think your points
argue against commercialization. It only means some
people do not care about getting monetary compensation.
It would be a serious mistake to try to stop others
from commercializing MU.

Perhaps I should quote a message posted in 2003,
when I suggested that uploading should be made
available to all for free:

   "Now there's a laugh.  Electricity free?  lol...
   and have you checked out the price of bottled
   water lately?  water is literally more expensive
   than gasoline." -- Ed Minchau

Heh..

>> The open-source model is entirely inappropiate for
>> MU because no one will ever be able to make 
>> significant contributions to MU in their
>> home-grown laboratories; whereas most people who own
>> a PC can contribute code.
>
>Uploaded minds will reside on some kind of computing
>system.

This is post-uploading; We're talking about R&D to
bring about uploading.

>SETI at home is an example of average people making
>significant contributions to a megaproject.  Much of
>mind uploading research will in fact be software and
>massively-parallel number crunching.

True but that does not argue against commercialization,
just as the existence of Linux does not argue against
Windows.

>Consider the caenorhabditis elegans uploading project.
> This is the simplest nervous system, 303 or so
>neurons, only 968 cells in the whole animal.  A lot of
>processing power is needed to figure out exactly in
>what way those neurons are connected and the way that
>each synapse modifies the calculation.  The rest of
>the cells of the body must be modelled as well,
>showing how each interacts with (perhaps) all the
>other cells.

Hmmm.... 303 neurons arn't that many. But the problem
is that the worm hardly has any cognitive abilities;
OTOH it may have signaling mechanisms that have no
counterparts in the human brain. But again, your
point does not argue against commercialization.

>Not only that, a primitive environment
>must be created in cyberspace, sufficiently detailed
>to provide stimuli to which the "uploaded" worm can
>react. 

Not true. I'm not a big fan of VR. Sensors and
transducers in a *REAL* environment will also work,
and that approach makes much more sense too.

[...]

>Through careful study of the interaction of the
>virtual worm and its virtual environment, and the ways
>in which those are reflected in its nervous system, we
>can better determine the actual connections involved
>in its nervous system.  On a more basic level, we
>learn how neurons really work, and can work on ways to
>improve our scanning techniques by focusing on
>important features we learne from the worm upload.

How does this argue against commercialization?

>That is a lot of number-crunching.  However, if the
>SETI at home idea is followed, that can be distributed
>across the internet.  

That does not argue against commercialization
either, just as the existence of Linux does not
mean that Windows must be abandoned.

>The AI industry runs parallel and intersects with mind
>uploading; where AI is top-down, mind uploading is
>bottom-up.  Their end goal is the same: human-level
>intelligence on an artificial substrate.  Note that
>the moment the first uploaded mind is created, a
>backup copy can be made, and then activated.  This
>backup copy is an AI.  So, as soon as mind uploading
>is a reality, so is human-level AI.  

I don't think talking the a common end-goal is
very useful because it's all subjective. Your
point that "AI:MU ~ bottom up:top down" is also
too vague to be useful.

>There are many software people working on AI in their
>basements, who could just as easily fit in with the
>mind uploading crowd.  And they could just as easily
>contribute code, which would be needed for a project
>like the c. elegans upload project.

If they can contribute, the research consortium
can make use of their contribution. That is not
precluded, especially if a SETI at home kind of
effort could be launched.

>> The consortium will *complete* the whole brain
>> emulation project, and then it will start to
>> generate revenue from the product. Only then,
>> it will begin to pay back the original
>> contributors whom the consortium has owed
>> tokens.
>
>Asking people to pay for something which will only pay
>off, if at all, _after_ the Singularity: sounds like a
>government program.

*I* think the Singularity is hyped. Like-minded
people will invest in the consortium. There are
risks and uncertainties involved as is the case
in any business venture. There is no coersion and
risk-takers take risks.

>If you want individual investors to spend big dollars
>on something, then they should have reason to expect
>to be paid back (with a profit) within their
>lifetimes.

Yes, and it can pay back if MU happens within
their lifetimes.

1. Do you want that to happen or not? Yes/No.
2. If yes, then are you working to achieve that? Yes/No.

If you must answer the above questions in that
order, then you'll see my point.

Moreover, people can invest money in MU IP even
when MU does not occur during their lifetimes.
IP tokens can be traded / inherited.

>> I'm actually suggesting a single consortium for the
>> entire brain emulation project (separate from BCI).
>> It is difficult but I think technically it is feasible.
>> The reason why this is necessary is that a partial
>> project cannot generate enough income to pay back
>> the funding, which is a form of debt financing (ie
>> we get funding now and pay back later).
>
>There is no way that consortium would attract
>investment for such an all-or-nothing project.  The
>above suggests that the brain emulation project would
>have one product: one emulated human brain.  This
>would be X number of years away.  This single product
>would then receive profit by....?  being sold?  (i
>don't think selling a sentient being is allowed under
>slavery laws)  Or perhaps the technique is sold.

On the one hand we know the laws will change if
MU will eventually be achieved. On the other hand
we don't need to make this explicit because the
convervatives would use that against us. We can
just say the project is neuroprosthetics.

>This misses out on any chance of making any money to
>perpetuate the project for X number of years.  What
>happens if the money runs out at X-4 years?  Are
>investors expected to put more money into the
>consortium, on a product which, if it works at all, is
>still 4 years away?

The consortium may go bankrupt if:
1. MU turns out to be impossible; or
2. Some other companies succeed in providing MU
   technology with a lower cost.

There are risks involved, but there're also a
lot of things that we can do, for example by
collaborating with others, being vigilant, and
by adapting to change quickly, etc. Notice that
if #2 happens, that would mean the management
of the consortium has missed out on some
important development.

>Instead, go for the incremental, multifaceted
>approach: use those guys in their home-grown
>laboratories, for starters. 

That's the same as saying business would do
better without management. True for *some*
companies!

YKY


____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10