Is brute-force "soft AI" a natural monopoly?
There seems to be gradually growing sentiment toward reining in Google as a monopoly. I appreciate some of the problems, but -- do we need competing indexes of the internet? If there's one, what's the point of the tremendous investment in another?
Meanwhile, Google seems to be steadily nibbling away at brute-force soft AI. "Soft" AI being a machine that "acts" or "seems to be" intelligent, without going into the hairy questions about what is "really" going on inside the box.
Broadly, and somewhat oversimplified, Google has the biggest collection ever of questions people have asked, the answers the machine offered, and which of those answers the person selected. Many of Google's current initiatives can be considered "soft AI" in various domains, based on their uniquely gigantic database of real human machine interactions. And, of course, the further ahead they get, the harder it is to catch up.
So I can sort of see the brute force approach to soft AI resembling a "natural monopoly". What's the point of spending astronomical amounts of money to duplicate or parallel Google's data bases?
And soft AI clearly has a lot in common with "conventional" "utilities". You get your 'device' to give you driving directions ad hoc. All of a sudden, I want it here, now. Right here. Right now. Just turn the spigot or flip the switch.
What might appropriate guidelines or regulation of such a utility be?
Meanwhile, Google seems to be steadily nibbling away at brute-force soft AI. "Soft" AI being a machine that "acts" or "seems to be" intelligent, without going into the hairy questions about what is "really" going on inside the box.
Broadly, and somewhat oversimplified, Google has the biggest collection ever of questions people have asked, the answers the machine offered, and which of those answers the person selected. Many of Google's current initiatives can be considered "soft AI" in various domains, based on their uniquely gigantic database of real human machine interactions. And, of course, the further ahead they get, the harder it is to catch up.
So I can sort of see the brute force approach to soft AI resembling a "natural monopoly". What's the point of spending astronomical amounts of money to duplicate or parallel Google's data bases?
And soft AI clearly has a lot in common with "conventional" "utilities". You get your 'device' to give you driving directions ad hoc. All of a sudden, I want it here, now. Right here. Right now. Just turn the spigot or flip the switch.
What might appropriate guidelines or regulation of such a utility be?