Всички права запазени! | All Rights Reserved! - сатирично есе относно мъгливи декларации, припомнено от SOPA и ACTA

That's a satiric article/essay of mine that was first published in the e-zine "Sacred Computer" almost 9 years ago, it's called "All rights reserved" and is about vague and absurd texts related to the copyright, which are stated in books. It's so absurd that if executed de facto it means that no one has the right to *read* the title of the book or to remember a single word from it. It's even worse, as explained in the article... I "reprint" it here reminded by the recent SOPA and ACTA affairs. (Sorry, only the original Bulgarian article is available in full now.)

Това е една моя сатирична статия от сп. "Свещеният сметач", която бях написал вдъхновен от мътността на текстовете на законите за авторско право, и сега си припомних във връзка със SOPA и ACTA("Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement"). Не ме разбирайте погрешно - както знаете, аз съм автор, творя произведения на изкуството от всякакви видове, жанрове и стилове, както и софтуер, и искам да получа възнаграждение за него и да печеля. Но текстът, който е изписан по книгите е абсурден - както ще се убедите по-долу...

---

Свещеният сметач - списанието на юнаците...

БРОЙ - 22 (април 2003) 

---

   Тодор Арнаудов 

Всички права запазени!

Приблизително през април-май 2002 г. постоянно бях облъчван от знаци, в които ми се обяснява, че правата върху "произведение на умствената собственост" са притежание на еди-кой си и всъщност ми е забранено да чета, слушам или гледам съответното произведение...

Всички права запазени. Нито една част от тази книга не може да бъде размножавана или предавана под никаква форма или начин, електронен или механичен, включително фотокопиране, записване или чрез каквито и да е системи за съхранение на информация, без предварително писмено разрешение на...

Ужас - всички сме престъпници! Всеки, който някога е възприемал предмет на умствена собственост ("обект на интелектуална" по "на-й-учному"), е нарушил умствената "собственост" на създателя му, защото е съхранил част от творбата, най-малко, в ума си. Нарушил е условието: "под каквато и да е форма за съхранение на информацията".

"Нито една част" означава нито знак от нея... което означава, че всички автори до един са крали един от друг... знаците, с които са изписали книгите си... Не знаци, а думи?...

Всъщност няма сериозен смисъл (само словозаврънкуловски и осмиващ) да питам какво разбират под "част". "Геният" на този, който е измислил горецитираната "прокламация за неприкосновеността на авторските права", препечатвана навсякъде в последно време, е безспорен.

"Нито една част" означава "нито една част", а "част" означава "част" и нищо друго. Ако означава друго, трябва да бъде упоменато, иначе нищо друго не се подразбира. "Хващаме се за думата", защото четем думи, не четем "духове" и щом някаква дума е записана и на нея е наблегнато (нито една част), то вероятно и писателят й се е "хванал" за нея. Ако пък е наблегнал безцелно, т.е. без да съзнава защо е наблегнал, тогава можем спокойно да (си) се под(и)граем с него.

След като не е казано какво е "част", то част означава буква, точка, запетая, шрифт, чертичка от буква, петънце върху книжното тяло, молекула целулоза, въглероден атом, нуклон, електрон - всяка част от книгата, за която може да се предава информация "под каквато и да е форма" - като се премества книгата в пространството се извършва огромен пренос на данни - прехвърлят се не знам си колко атома (информация) от едно място на друго. Не може да се разпространява и чрез "каквито и да е системи за съхраниение на информация", следователно и човешки мозък.

Думи ли? Всеки човек във всекидниевния си живот нарушава "правата", защото използва думите от съответния език, които вече са "патентовани" от прочут писател.

Не думи? Изречения? Защо? Всъщност защо букви? Както по-горе отбелязахме, "част" означава каквато и да е част - буквите са един от най-естествените изрази на въобраз (информация) за човека, защото са вградени в него от много рано; те са знакова уредба, с която непрекъснато си служим. Служим си обаче и с други знакови системи. Разпознаваме частите на изображения преди да образуваме в паметта си азбуки от условни образи. Буквите са съставени от отсечки, дъги, ъгли между отсечки - това също са части, които всеки зрящ човек разпознава много преди да научи азбуката. За да ги познае ги помни под някакъв въоблик (формат), следователно под някаква форма. В дъното на въоблика за запомняне на изчертани знаци е точката - клетка или околност от клетки в ретината на окото, върху която светлината е с различен цвят, отколкото в клетките, извън тази околност, най-вече граничещите с точката; точката е най-простото изображение, което може да се помни, най-простата "част" от произведението, защитено от авторски права.

Добре де... Тези, които измислят цитати като горецитата едва ли се замислят толкова дълбоко, те търсят "духовете на закона"... И тъй като "по-умният отстъпва" - ще им отстъпя още някой ред с техни осмивки и читателски усмивки.

Нека минем към по-горно отвлечение ("ниво на абстракция" по "на-й-учному") - изречения.
Да минем, и какво? И изреченията се повтарят често... Това, което ми се случи преди около година (април 2002) го доказва: прочетох в книга същото, при това, рядко срещано изречение (доколкото не съм имал случай да попадна на него от другаде), което скоро бях чул във филма "Риба меч". Скоро означава, че още "ми държеше влага" и въртях песни от звуковата му ивица.

"...the lack of realism..." Четири поредни звукосъчетания, на които се натъкнах в книгата "Eurographics'85" и са изречени от Джон Траволта в "Риба меч" след около 16 години (сигурно и от много други междувременно, по-рано и след това...) В началото на книжката беше изрично записано, че всички права са запазени... Следователно авторите й могат да осъдят създателите на "Риба меч", понеже са написали книгата си 16 години преди те да направят филма...


Щом и изречение не е достатъчно... Що да стоирим тогава? Колко би трябвало да бъде размера на "непозволеното, дори за запомняне" поле от творбата? Естествено - достатъчно дълго, така че честотата му на повторение да е изключително ниска, да клони, по възможност, към "нищо". Да речем - цяла страница. Ако се срещне цяла страница, например три хиляди знака, която е напълно еднаква с друга, тогава е възможно да има "кражба" на "умствена собственост"?

Но не е сигурно... Колко му е да преразкажеш чуждото със свои думи и да му лепнеш значка: "Aзи си го измислий туй, мои йе!"? Но и колко му е да стигнеш до заключенията, до които е стигнал и някой друг преди теб, ако мислиш в същата насока? "Николко" му е - на мен ми се е случвало много пъти, срещал съм не само, че това, което съм си измислил за "лични нужди", е било измислено "за света" много преди мен; виждал съм "своите" мисли, написани с почти същите изречения. Вероятно се е случвало на всеки да се ужаси от подобни съвпадения.

Достатъчно е обстановката да те напътства така, че да те насочи в търсене на същата крайна цел, каквато може да си е поставил някой друг и я е изпълнил някога преди теб. Истините са си истини. Значителни открития, например, са били извършвани едновременно на няколко места в отрязък от няколко години, месеци, дори дни.

© Тош, 2002-2003 ;-) 

---

© Тодор Арнаудов (Тош, TodProg, Twenkid) - март 2003

Речник на някои думи от юнашкото наречие:
въобраз - информация

въоблик - формат
звукова ивица - sound track/саунд трак, звукът към филм (не е само музика)

Read More

Colour Optical Illusions are the Effect of the 3D-Reconstruction and Compensation of the Light Source Coordinates and Light Intensity in an Assumed 2D Projection of a 3D Scene

1) In the 2D image the pixels of the brown square in the middle on the top side of the cube is actually the same pixel color as the orange square in the side which looks in the shadow part of the cube. Notice the picture below, there's more contrast and the square looks darker.

2.) Squares A and B in the 2D picture have the same absolute shade of gray.

Looks mysterious, there are claims that these are "prewired" bugs. My explanation is pretty straight, and these color illusions are rather a feature than a bug. It seems as a bug only in perverse cases as in the illusions, and only before the reason is understood:

Introduction

Light source coordinates, lights colors and reflections are ambiguous

2D images, and even the "stereo" images from our eyes from the real world are ambiguous regarding the light source and the colors, because the scenes are usually partially observable and because there's only perception of absolute color - "RGB" and luminance (rods and cones ).  Besides light also has color and there can be reflections and shadows which can change both luminance and color of the affected areas. Another ambiguous components are the texture, reflectiveness and transparency of the objects, which also alters the low level RGB properties.

 "Light sources" are not perceived at the low level input - it is a construct created in order to explain the patterns of differences in luminance and color which are observed. The places with high luminance are seen as "lit", the ones with lower - "shadowed", and the gradients of luminance seem as light following shapes, dispersing, reflecting etc. What is actually "following the shapes of the objects", dispersing, reflecting etc. is the luminance of the "pixels" in the 2D image.

It's similar with transparency, reflectiveness etc. - these are stable correlation observed in many samples, which gave birth of the prediction that given such correlation, the object/that part of the 2D image or reconstructed 3D scene should have a property "transparency" etc.

3D reconstruction from a 2D image is ambiguous

Cognitive hierarchy gets samples of 2D images which are projections of 3D objects. Even more - stereo samples allow it to do its kind of "triangulation" and reconstruct distances so that we perceive depth if we look with both eyes.

 It goes even further - if one has grown with two healthy eyes, distance can be measured even if you close one of them. And even more: humans see 3D space in 2D projections on a flat surface (a picture or electronic screen) using only one eye!

 That's possible because of the "aggressively" repetitive perception of correlations between the 2D projections on the retina and the perspective changes of the image after controlled and predictable changing the viewing angle or/and object coordinates.

The correlations of the change of luminance and color depending on the light source (changes in contrast, luminance and color) are also observed.

 A lot of 2D clues for the 3-rd dimension of the objects and the position and intensity of light are extracted and "fixed" so that future 2D images are perceived as 3D even if having just connected parallel lines and other minute details characteristic for perspective transformation.

I've discussed a little bit on this back in 2004 in my [Teenage] Theory of Universe and Mind, Part 4:
The section starts from the last line at p.30 in this translation.
// The picture there seems not to appear in the document, it's the one below: //



Mind sees 3D space and light source(s) everywhere

 The price of the simplicity of 3D-clues and light is that these repetitive correlations cause mind to expect 3D space and light source(s) even in the 2D flat images. Artists use to draw 2D projections of a 3D space, both photographs and video do etc, the clues are constantly reinforced.

It seems that the highest consciousness level can hardly inhibit 3D perception/integration on demand and see 2D images as 2D if any 3D-clues intervene and confuse it.

[Edit/note from: 23/7/2012 - Therefore 3D is more powerful, it has more impact to mind and seems to come first in such perceptions, and that's reasonable - because humans initially sense the world as 3D with two eyes, and all our physical muscular reactions, which in essence are just sequences of coordinate adjustments, are in 3D, not in 2D, the real world is perceived as not flat. Follow the blog for continuation on the topic.]

So...

Why the brown square looks orange?

Because the 3D-reconstructed scene seems to display a cube which is lit from the top and the side which is directed towards the screen is in the shadow, there are too much clues suggesting this, so mind believes.

However if the square in the shadow has the same absolute 2D retinal color ("RGB") as the lit square, and it is still in a shadow, then the original unlit color of the shadowed square should have been orange, because orange at this relatively lower luminance turns into the brown - the same like the top square was.

 The case with the gray squares and the cylinder on the other picture is similar. The connections and borders added on the right illustration destroy the clues suggesting that these particular squares are part of the 3D scene with the cylinder and the light source behind it, because they don't follow the pattern of light. There are not clues that they are behind the scene either (being partially covered - there are no interrupted lines), so the "Z-buffer" puts them in front of the other elements. Now there is not a light source and a shadow over those squares, and their absolute retinal RGB values are not adjusted differently.

Mystery unveiled... :)

Hypothesis

• A quick hypothesis might be that young infants that don't see depth yet may not have this optical illusion.
  
• However I'm not sure about that - I suspect that babies should understand that light sources change color and luminance of the areas they impact long before they have robust 3D-perception, 3D is not needed, so I guess they may have clues of light and shadow interaction and see the optical illusion even before they see 3D.
  
  It will be just a 2D optical illusion, because I suspect brain probably does a partial 2D light-color reconstruction before it goes into 3D. (It would be cool if I could conduct some kind of experiments, but not possible yet.)
  

2D-projections of 3D scenes are "2D 1/2" or "Quasi 3D" anyway, and that indeed is the reason for the impossible perspective drawings of Escher and other artists.

3D-reconstruction is ambiguous and these drawings suggest that it's done locally, based on local 2D-clues. Globally the picture might be absurd, but mind fails in focusing in on all 3D-clues, so it sees correct perspective in the different elements.

Why can't we correct this illusion consciously?

One reason I'd say is that is not really an illusion.

Another answer is in the recent series I posted about higher-lower level feedback/reflection in the cognitive hierarchies which I think is much weaker/narrower than the feedforward.

 Higher level understands some of the "mistakes" and "delusions" (wrong predictions) of the lowers if takes details separately out of their context, but it cannot correct them if they are too many levels below and if there are too many *correct* predictions at the lower levels. The clues suggesting there's no illusion and the predictions *work* are reinforced for too many cases to be dismissed and altered.

In the examples above everything in the low level input suggests that there is no illusion: all other correlations between absolute pixel values confirm that these are pictures of 3D-scenes with their light sources and shadows.

Another explanation might be that high levels lack direct access to the lowest levels - retinal RGB-luminance values.

...

To be continued...

* Thanks to a show on Discovery Channel about optical illusions that made me think about this yesterday and realize this mechanism.

** Happy New Year, wishing 2012 to be more productive in AGI/SIGI.

- Оптични илюзии с цветове - възстановяване на триизмерните координати на източника на светлина в двуизмерна проекция на тримерна сцена.

 (C)  Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov,  1/1/2012   (except illusion photos)

Read More

Beautiful Researchers - a documentary about Famelab 2010 and the promo clip of the Bulgarian TV show "Beautiful Science" | Красиви учени, или Зад кулисите на Лаборатория за слава/Феймлаб 2010 и Красива наука 2011

That's my latest artistically shot and edited funny documentary, edited and composited with my own software.

It's still an in-house prototype and I've not being working on it much though - the project was totally frozen for 4+ months since the previous movie in the summer, I added a few new functions lately for this one.
Audio: Bulgarian
Original post and info (Bulgarian)

Read More

Embodiment is just coordinate spaces, interactivity and modalities - not a mystery

"The debate" - should an AGI be embodied or not. I participated in a discussion on sensorimotor hierarchies a few months ago in the AGI list, but I'm lazy to digest it here right now (yet). I'll reword one POV of the essence which I thought of recently, though.  "Body" and "embodiment" is actually about:

- Known fixed basic continuous coordinate spaces - that simplifies search and basic operations and sets one of the basic components of the inputs and their initial "labels" - coordinates. The simplest use of this is that mind can recognize where the activity is and relate coordinates of inputs to each other.

- Interactivity - input and output, includes changes of coordinates as smooth as possible in time-space - allows for as general as possible inputs and outputs (actions).

- Modalities - it's about dealing with different types of lowest level (for the system's sensors) input from the environment, with the "physics" - for constructive reasons and more general input. Each system should eventually deal with some kind of lowest level input and output, the more general it is, the more general intelligence would be.

- Inter-modalities - to relate and find models between them.

- Value-free initial inputs - initially sensory inputs and motor outputs don't have meanings, except when related to:

- Basic reward-system - that's in order to keep system's integrity in the "physical" world where it exists and to avoid self-destruction.

Read More

I'm a Rocker Researcher! Demo - AC/DC's "Rocker" and Todor's Improvisation Cover Solo

"Rocker" - AC/DC and me Tosh - performed with my new baby (on the right)
Photographer: me.

Read More

Abstract Addressing and Discontinuous Addressing Impede Processing in Generalizing Hierarchies

The article is related to the series of:  Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Rationalization and Confusions Caused by High Level Generalizations and the Feedforward-Feedback Imbalance in Brain and Generalization Hierarchies

The lowest level of addressing for human mind are:

- Orientation/position of muscles/bones.
- Coordinates in sensory matrices:
  - Visual coordinate on the retina.
  - Coordinate of a tactile input on the body.
  - Pitch of the sound.
  - Particluar tastes or smells.

A bit higher level, but still low:- Spatial coordinates of the body within environment (probably related to hippocampus, "place cells", head orientation cells)

   - These are direct inputs to brain.


Selection, combination and generalization of them in space and time forms higher level coordinates/addresses. The patterns/concepts at different levels of abstraction in the cognitive hierarchy have higher level addresses, where higher level addresses and patterns are harder and slower to access and operate and require more context- and attention-switching.

The phenomenon is displayed for example in:

1. Using multiple monitors and looking right-left is generally more convenient than switching between two virtual desktops with a key or worse - menus

Unless you make a visual comparison between the images on the two monitors, then key-switching is more convenient; but for displaying different data, physical coordinates seem better.

2. Having a "to do list" or whatever materials for look up on a paper/notepad next to the monitor/out of the computer is more convenient for mind to switch focus.

Looking aside of the monitor or turning around feels like a "soft context/attention-switch", you don't get as distracted as you would if you have to travel through menus, open an organizer program, check "month, date, priority....". Take for example big paper posters like ones for conferences - you just have to glance it to find what you need. These are different spatial (physical) coordinates of entities as well.

However if the data from different contexts is on the same screen/physical address, that requires an additional abstraction/parameters to mark the different contexts.

3. Chains of intentional high-level operations needed to access abstract addresses impede processing and are more distracting than a single or chain of low level operations such as adjusting muscles/orientation or changing physical location

For example, if you have to open one place, to search there, then find a key to search for another location etc. (either virtual or physical locations).

Intentional actions involve the longest chains of access of different levels of generalizations. If many actions are needed, this implies it takes more time and it's like "crawling" the hierarchy and sweeping the buffers, then it of course will cause slower context-switch back.

4. Orders of patterns associated with flat numbers are easier to remember than if associated with abstract unrelated names

See "Friday, May 2, 2008 What is better for a multi-effects guitar processor's display - numbers or names?" http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-is-better-for-guitar-effects.html

5. Continuity within same coordinate system/address space (related to 4.)


Smoothness allows for simper encoding of the following steps and predictions.


Continues...

Read More

Exoskeletons - Berkeley Bionics Human Exoskeleton

Do you want one of these super suits to carry your stuff? :) I do.

Read More

Terms: Self-Improving General Intelligence (SIGI). Self-Improving Generally Intelligent Mind (SIGIM). Самоусъвършенстващ се Разум (СУР). Самоусъвършенстваща се мислеща машина (СУММ).

IMO "A" in AGI or "AI" is a redundant word, and what's more important in POV are the other terms.

- General Intelligence (GI)  - can be applied to humans as well
- Self-Improving General Intelligence (SIGI)
- Self-Improving Generally Intelligent Mind (SIGIM)
- Self-Improving Generally Intelligent Machine (SIGIM)
(SIGI & SIGIM are interchangeable; SIGI & GI can be applied to humans as well)

...
- Универсален разум (УР) или само "разум" - може да се прилага и за хора, и за машини.
- Самоусъвършенстващ се универсален Разум (СУР) - може да се прилага и за хора, и за машини.
- Самоусъвършенстваща се универсална машина (СУМ).   
- Самоусъвършенстваща се универсална мислеща машина (СУММ).

 Смисълът "универсална" се подразбира, дори и ако "универсална" формално се пропусне.

...

Self-Improving/Самоусъвършенстващ се means in the most general case in POV of B. K an mine:

- Improve precision and/or scope of predictions of future inputs based on past inputs.

For a true SIGI the process of self-improving should be as general as possible and as scalable as possible, keeping the trend for as long as possible, starting from raw intrinsically meaningless sensory input.

There's no "magic" here, unlike some fake AGI researchers assume there should be.

Read More

Richard Feynman - a Great Person, Physicist and a Born to be an Actor and Comedian. Talks Worth Listening To. In Memoriam

I recommend all of his talks for inspiration and fun. He's a hybrid of an ingenious physicist and a very talented actor and comedian - reminds me of Robert De Niro and Al Pacino; it's something about their common New York accent.

Richard Feynman, the Nobel, 'It's a pain in the neck.'





Richard Feynman - The Character of Physical Law - Part 7 Seeking New Laws (full version)



Feynman on Scientific Method. (Related closely to General Intelligence principles in AGI)







Richard Feynman - The Distinction of Past and Future.



BTW, a POV to irreversability of mine -- it's because of the bad communication between particles. The smallest particles/details, whatever their nature is, are correlated too much and are harder to be controlled by an external structure than to do what's already "encoded". It's hard to cause an action without causing by-effects which are uncontrollable or undesirable, but also unavoidable - that's related to the "quantum uncertainty".

The smallest particles are what drives causation, and they are supposed to have the smallest equivalents of computing power and memory compared to bigger particles; that's why their "behavior" is the simplest, have the shortest scope and seems "chaotic".

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 1: Jiggling Atoms



... All of the series ...

Feynman 'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets (and 'Why?' questions...)



Richard Feynman - The Character of Physical Law - Part 6 Probability and Uncertainty (full version)


Thanks to Alexander for sharing a link to some of Feynman's talks.

Read More

PETMAN - Boston Dynamics' new Stunning Humanoid Robot and AlphaDog

Wow...

An  e-zine Article

Read More

News: AGI Forum Opened (Alpha) and Twenkid Research - updated web site (Alpha) | Форум по Универсален изкуствен разум (изкуствен интелект) на Тодор Арнаудов - Тош

Welcome to the updated web site of "Twenkid Research" (Alpha) and to the AGI Forum of the Independent Scalable AGI Society which opened for participants, but it's "Alpha" as well, need to be filled with some more pinned topics, information and links in the sections - I prepared plenty of them.

http://research.twenkid.com

Update: It doesn't work anymore. May be opened in the future. It seemed that some DNS were hacked and point to a forum that doesn't have anything to do with thinking machines...

Enjoy

...

Колеги, заповядайте във форум по Универсален изкуствен разум (универсален изкуствен интелект, "силно направление" в ИИ, мислещи машини) на Обществото на независими изследователи, създаден от Тодор Арнаудов - Тош. Включва подфоруми в многобройни свръзани области и подфорум на български език.

...
Words: artificial general intelligence, thinking machines, forum, discussion, independent, scalable, AI, UAI

Read More