Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...
Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Modeling The AGI Economy
Competition, Redistribution and the Fork Ahead
Heading towards the knowledge age
Philosophy Mondays: Human-AI Collaboration
Today's Philosophy Monday is an important interlude. I want to reveal that I have not been writing the posts in this series entirely by myself. Instead I have been working with Claude, not just for the graphic illustrations, but also for the text. My method has been to write a rough draft and then ask Claude for improvement suggestions. I will expand this collaboration to other intelligences going forward, including open source models such as Llama and DeepSeek. I will also explore other moda...
Intent-based Collaboration Environments
AI Native IDEs for Code, Engineering, Science
Modeling The AGI Economy
Competition, Redistribution and the Fork Ahead
Heading towards the knowledge age
Subscribe to Continuations
Subscribe to Continuations
>600 subscribers
>600 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
The Oracle-Google law suit highlights another problem with software patents. Many folks who are opposed to software patents (either entirely or at least to their current breadth) work for companies that have to play by the existing patent rules - which means filing lots of patents so that you have some bargaining chips when you inevitably get sued down the road. The net result is that inventors who work at these companies wind up on patents that are sometimes later litigated by entirely different parties (post merger or acquisition or change of management)! So what started out as contributing to a defensive move can be turned by someone else into an offensive weapon. My name is on a couple of patents that have since been acquired by AOL and Yahoo respectively. So far so good and none of them have been used offensively (as far as I know), but given my position on software patents it would be quite ironic if that were to happen. This definitely poses a dilemma for inventors, where one is caught between supporting a necessary evil (defensive patents) and proliferating the very practice one would like to get rid off!
The Oracle-Google law suit highlights another problem with software patents. Many folks who are opposed to software patents (either entirely or at least to their current breadth) work for companies that have to play by the existing patent rules - which means filing lots of patents so that you have some bargaining chips when you inevitably get sued down the road. The net result is that inventors who work at these companies wind up on patents that are sometimes later litigated by entirely different parties (post merger or acquisition or change of management)! So what started out as contributing to a defensive move can be turned by someone else into an offensive weapon. My name is on a couple of patents that have since been acquired by AOL and Yahoo respectively. So far so good and none of them have been used offensively (as far as I know), but given my position on software patents it would be quite ironic if that were to happen. This definitely poses a dilemma for inventors, where one is caught between supporting a necessary evil (defensive patents) and proliferating the very practice one would like to get rid off!
No activity yet