Saturday, September 04, 2004
Manhattan Project to Integrate Human-centric Information Production
On technology innovation
This note communicates a partial understanding of the past related to the proposed work.
We have made the statement that a universal analytic infrastructure can be demonstrated within three weeks.
The capability could be partially demonstrated tomorrow, because the work is already completed. The demonstration will create a simple integration of two core technologies that have been separately developed.
The Knowledge Sharing Core has been worked on conceptually for two years, and is where an extensive deployment could be made.
The principles of the Knowledge Sharing Core require that most Human-centric Information Production (HIP ™) code and knowledge production and management techniques become public knowledge. But that will take longer then three weeks. We are planning a National Project where perhaps 200 million dollars per year would be diverted form the support of traditional computer science and directed at developing a K-12 curriculum in the science of knowledge systems, based on the concepts surrounding the anticipatory web concept.
The three week integration plan involves a simple integration of the existing Readware information base into the Orb encoding and then the use of this encoding to reproduce results that Readware already has, and for which we have been revealing in these public discussions:
So why do we expect that this three week project could be a tipping point?
Extensive work in Russia, and by isolated groups, has prepared the stage to forward Human-centric Information Production (HIP ™) products. The nature of HIP ™ products has a commonality and this commonality is both the cause of well-understood inhibitory reflexes by program managers and other scientists, and is the key to the innovation that we are proposing.
The history and the level of hype from the Artificial Intelligence academic and defense consulting industry (DARPA) is one of the key inhibitory causes.
As in all large processes, there is a period of readiness for growth, and then a period in which the growth of the process can be observed.
The statement about the three weeks was to serve two purposes. One purpose was to lay down some cards and say, test us, three weeks at full funding.
The second purpose, for talking about "three weeks", was to make a reference to the readiness of both the marketplace, in this time where the discussion of the re-organization of the Intelligence Community is revealing the poor performance of the traditional IT consultants vendors, and innovators.
A type of fear occurs about the consequences of changes in the nature of the set of rules and expectations. One might suggest that this fear is more irrational, than rational, and keeps the world safe from changes that are as large as the one we are suggesting is about to occur. Perhaps the term, "memetic reaction" is appropriate, and with this term we would imply a high degree of unconscious, knee-jerk, reactions.
A break through is possible. The statement about the near term, three week, demonstration of a universal analytic infrastructure, is quite different from the AI claims. Never in AI was there a physical theory, or a cognitive theory, that suggested that silicon was or could become self-aware. This part of AI was always pure hype. The HIP (Human-centric information production) paradigm explicitly acknowledges that the human expert is essential in the development of these new types of analytic resources.
The infrastructure is simply email, since all data encoded into an Orb is by default written out and read from ASCII text files.
Positive AI, that part of the academic discipline of Artificial Intelligence has been of great value was an exploration of a set of conjectures regarding the appropriateness of traditional logics.
As the academia explored these conjectures, there was much gained, but part of what was learned was that traditional logic has a limitation that can be quite well demonstrated now. We as a community understand what the claim of AI was and is.
DARPA is shamelessly playing this hype again in full regalia.
DARPA’s financial power is part of the cultural inhibitory barriers that HIP ™ and the anticipatory web concept is facing.
We all can observe an absence of thinking through what is actually being said as a total communication, from a group of scientists, about stratified theory and substructural ontology.
Is the language used here, ie "substructural ontology" and "stratification", consistent with an objective view of nature and evidence about nature?
An objective evaluation is needed.