Google and Amazon are giants in today's corporate culture. Much like Standard Oil of 1900, GM and IBM of 1970, and Walmart of 1995, Google(Alphabet technically) and Amazon stand alone when discussing companies today. Google's largest competitor on search is literally Amazon's search bar. Historically speaking, there's nothing unusual about a capitalist climate being dominated by two or three major players, even with fair competition. However, there is one thing that sets this BigTech era of Google and Amazon apart from past eras of corporate dominance: the asset they hold. Big Tech doesn't control land, natural resources, or even most machines(there are a few interesting exceptions, but only in niche areas). No, Big Tech controls intelligence. The biggest asset of Google and Amazon are the intelligence of their employees.
Naturally, they would love to increase their control of intelligence by making more of it through "Artificial Intelligence" and boy have they been doing so. They have a good strategy: find really smart people to develop AI, woo them with a really nice corporate culture, and have tough trade-secret rules to discourage their departure. This tactic would literally lead to Google and Amazon controlling the best AI and starting a singularity for ultimately decisive corporate domination if not for one thing, software patents on AI. The patent process is becoming increasingly beneficial to smaller companies that want to develop AI without seeing that AI swallowed whole by Google, Amazon, and Facebook. Google's DeepMind division is extremely secretive, but appears to have the technology to literally just comb and reverse engineer the Internet for novel software and algorithms developed by other companies and incorporate them into its own AI--only existing intellectual properties laws are stopping Google's AI divisions like DeepMind from doing this. This is why smaller AI companies are seeking patents on their technology, to protect their intelligence. There are two competing patent strategies for small AI startups though: one strategy is to patent rarely but powerfully with a couple of really broad patents, and the other strategy is to patent smaller innovations more aggressively. Consider this patent from DarwinAI: System and method for automatic building of learning machines using learning machines https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190138929A1 This is only one patent, but it is a huge patent that claims a lot. It is literally singularity-style tech that deals with artificial intelligence designing other forms of artificial intelligence. Whoever controls this kind of innovation will inevitably control the future as the inexorable advance of AI continues. DarwinAI seems to like the broader patent approach. I wonder if DarwinAI faced a restriction requirement from the USPTO when they initially filed for this patent. Kyndi is the opposite. Kyndi likes to patent frequently for it's innovations that allow for specific problems to be solved. Consider this patent, which will be discussed in more detail in another Quantum Computing entry: Quanton representation for emulating quantum-like computation on classical processors https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160328253A1 This is a very specific innovation that is basically dealing with ways to simulate quantum computing on convention computers. It's claim is specific. That's right, I wrote 'claim' not 'claims' as there is only one claim in the application. I think the difference in patent-strategy between Kyndi and DarwinAI reflects differing roles of AI. For Kyndi, AI is really just a tool for inventing other methods and machines, whereas for DarwinAI, AI is the end goal of its innovation.
8 Comments
7/30/2022 03:09:47 pm
https://www.kriptoseyir.com/category/bitcoin-nasil-alinir/
Reply
12/19/2022 08:51:29 am
İnstagram takipçi satın almak istiyorsan tıkla.
Reply
1/4/2023 11:21:51 am
100 tl deneme bonusu veren siteleri öğrenmek istiyorsan tıkla.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
November 2021
Categories |