The Playground

    There has been going on discussion in ECW about Rossi's new patent application in Australia.

    You can jump from the ECW-page to the load-site of the documents.

    Rossi himself doesn't want to participate in this discussion.

    One interesting item in this discussion has been ChatGBT. That has been used to try to explain certain

    chapters in the application. This is the first time i hear that AI has been used for this kind of purpose.

    About the application:


    Speculation has immediately started about replications now when the patent application is available.

    When shall we see the first "working" copy of the device ?

    It is interesting that the first filing appears to have been Japan (note that I assume he also filed in the US and an EP but that they haven't showed up on Espacenet yet). I don't know why anyone (not located in Japan) would file there first. Rossi is a resident of the US or Italy and the "invention and R&D" presumably also occurred in one of those countries.


    AFAIK the US requires inventions conceived in the US to be filed first in the US. Italy requires residents to file first in Italy.


    If the patent application was real, there are already a few ways the validity of any eventual patent could be attacked.

    Is this it, then?


    HAS ELVIS LEFT THE BUILDING?


    Has the the Rome apartment been gutted, and the occupants departed with No Forwarding Address?


    Has sufficient 'investment' money been raised to enable future 'R&D' in Sweden (or Japan, Australia, South Africa, etc)?


    [Update Edit]


    ...aaaaand it's back! The 'multi-year, non-stop' livestream has re-appeared. Offline for half a day, perhaps to enable hidden wiring to be installed for the NEWtm, IMPROVEDtm, 'NO-EXTERNAL-POWER-NEEDEDtm' version which:


    "Calls the faithful to their knees To hear the softly spoken magic spell" ('Time', Pink Floyd)

    Gie me ae spark o' nature's fire, That's a' the learning I desire

    R. Burns

    Edited 2 times, last by nul-points ().

    Haha 4

    The front page of ECW is dedicated to Rossi's dead link. Is Frank having a nervous breakdown?

    I suppose this is to be expected as that plug-in e-cat version is obsolete and the latest SSM version is being prepared for the fantabulious new live stream. God bless entrepreneur and philanthropist Dr. Engr. Andrea Rossi, Ph.D., JD, Psy., CEO, CFO, and Chief People Officer of Leonardo Corporation, Dicaprio division.

    Abstracts written by ChatGPT fool scientists
    Researchers cannot always differentiate between AI-generated and original abstracts.
    nature.us17.list-manage.com


    AI-generated abstracts fool scientists


    The artificial-intelligence (AI) chatbot ChatGPT can write fake abstracts that scientists have trouble distinguishing from those written by humans. The chatbot was asked to create 50 abstracts on the basis of the titles of articles in five high-impact medical journals. Reviewers spotted only 68% of the ChatGPT abstracts — performing roughly the same as AI-detector software. Researchers are divided over the implications: some find it worrying, but others think that serious scientists are unlikely to use AI-generated abstracts.


    Nature | 4 min read

    Quote from PhysicsForDummies

    For some strange reason, the e-cat "livestream" is now a "deadstream" again.

    Must be battery change time.

    https://e-catworld.com

    2023-01-13 07:58 Stephen 

    Dear Andrea

    Regarding the YouTube cut out issues. One idea I read somewhere on ECW was to have two independent streams with at least the click in view. If these were started at different times it’s unlikely they would be cut at the same time.

    If from a different view point two streams could be useful in other ways too.:

    Giving a different perspective maybe from the back showing the lamps illumination of something else. Or some other interesting aspect of the test.

    Adding security by allowing blind spots to be checked when working with it remotely.

    Just an idea.

    Best regards

    Stephen

    2023-01-13 13:23 Andrea Rossi 

    Stephen:

    We decided to adopt your suggestion.

    Thank you,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    Eagle nests, etc. get streamed by technical amateurs for years without difficulty.

    Roger is Rocking today.

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Quote from sam12

    2023-01-13 07:58 Stephen 

    Dear Andrea

    Regarding the YouTube cut out issues. One idea I read somewhere on ECW was to have two independent streams ...[snip]

    For context - Having been advised similarly on more than a few occasions, it appears, another exchange occurred just prior to the one above:


    George
    January 13, 2023 at 4.46 PM

    Dr Rossi,

    We noticed that sometimes the streaming of youtube gets frozen for reasons independent from you: this will make sceptics to think that the stops are generated by you. Can you make something to avoid such such stops ?


    Andrea Rossi
    January 13, 2023 at 3.21 AM

    George:

    Good question; we are not able, so far, to resolve this problem; for the black outs we resolved with a backup, but if Youtube freezes the video there is nothing we can do. Too bad for the sceptics.

    Suggestions how to resolve are very, very welcome,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.


    [Emphasis added]

    Gie me ae spark o' nature's fire, That's a' the learning I desire

    R. Burns

    Edited once, last by nul-points ().

    Wow, the JONP poster with the telltale space before his question mark and Rossi both don't know what the word "ultimatum" means. What are the odds?


    2023-01-12 11:50 Saju Abraham

    Dear Dr.Rossi

    I am a regular of your blog for the last 10 years. Do you believe the evelution of your invention will reach an ultimatum in any time in future ?

    Thanks

    2023-01-13 03:38 Andrea Rossi

    Saju Abraham:

    Thank you for your affection to our blog.

    Technologies evolution never reaches an ultimatum,

    Warm Regards,

    A.R.

    However misspoken, the answer is “never” and for Rossi that’s true

    Quote from Nar

    ...


    If the patent application was real, there are already a few ways the validity of any eventual patent could be attacked.

    I tried Google Patents, first with Egely's patent application. GP did show this nicely for Egely:

    When trying with the given patent application code for Rossi, AU2021282556, GP didn't find anything.

    So is this a fake-application ? Or is it possible that the application's existence is not yet available for the public ?
    Does anyone know what is the typical patent application handling sequence in Australia ?

    Quote from Alan Smith

    The case for consciousness in machines.

    I agree with Arthur Clarke on this issue. He said something like, "I am sure that conscious, sentient machines are possible because I carry one on my shoulders." In other words, if biological neuron-based brains that evolved on earth can be conscious, we have no reason to think that similar brains based on other biology elsewhere in the universe are also conscious, or that technology-based machines with similar neurons cannot also be conscious. To say it is impossible is to imply there is something magical or ineffable about brain tissue that cannot possibly be replicated in other media. When I say "replicate" I mean something similar to the way electroactive polymers replicate muscles, or ventricular assist devices (VAD) replicate the heart. I mean they perform the same function, with the same outcome, even though the underlying physical properties are different.


    The "ineffable" hypothesis -- that there is something science can never understand -- has been applied to many phenomena in the past, especially the origin of life, genetics, and the ability of one cell to reproduce an entire complex organism. These things were once considered miraculous and forever beyond our grasp. Nowadays we know exactly how they work. The basic principles are taught in junior high school.


    To address the author's points:


    "a) We do not understand the neural basis of consciousness in humans, nor do we have a clear, uncontroversial philosophical answer to the hard problem of consciousness . . ."


    We don't have to understand it completely. No one knows exactly, in every detail, how combustion works. We learn more about it every year. Despite our incomplete knowledge we have been using fire successfully for 400,000 years. We do not know every aspect of E. Coli biology, but we know enough to control infections and use E. Coli to manufacture many useful things such as human insulin.



    "This makes a theoretical, top down approach to building machine consciousness difficult."


    So what? A bottoms up approach has worked for nearly every technology we use. We had no top down approach to fire, metallurgy, stone cutting or anything else before 1650.



    "b) We don’t know if building conscious machines is even compatible with the laws of nature."

    Of course we know this! There are billions of conscious machines all around us.


    "c) We don’t know if Big Tech will want to build conscious machines due to the ethical sensitivity of creating conscious systems."

    That is a completely separate issue, having nothing to do with the technical issues. If Big Tech in the next 50 years will not do this, perhaps it will 100 years from now, or 300 years from now. This is like saying big automobile manufacturers did not want to make electric cars in 1980. That is true, but it did not mean electric cars were not feasible or practical in 1980. Manufacturers made a business decision not to develop electric cars, which turned out to be a mistake.



    "d) We don’t know if building conscious AI would be technologically feasible — it might be ridiculously expensive."


    Of course it is not technically feasible today. This is like saying in 1960 that "a desktop computer than does 3 billion operations per second is not technically feasible." Everyone knew that back in 1962. It would have been ridiculously expensive. Such machines are everywhere today, and they cost practically nothing. There is no reason to think that a silicon based intelligent machine will take large amounts of materials, or large amounts of electricity, or expensive materials, or processing and manufacturing more expensive than today's computers. Obviously it will take techniques we have not yet discovered, but once you invent a technique it costs nothing after that. Once you teach a robot how to balance, deal with the center of mass, and dance, robots will be able to do that for the rest of history at no additional cost. (See the video below.)


    There is no reason to think that an intelligent machine with approximately the power of a human brain will be much larger than a human brain. Unless we happen to want one that is a million times more powerful than a human brain, which might be a handy thing to have. Sometimes it is useful to have a machine that is far more powerful than any human or biological equivalent, such as an airplane that flies faster than any bird, or a supercomputer that does more computations per second than the entire human race could with pencil and paper.


    Granted, some biological data processing devices are far better than human technology. DNA storage is so compact, all of the world's data could fit into a liter of DNA. It it longer lasting. DNA kept in proper conditions will last for hundreds of thousands of years. DNA is far ahead of human data storage today . . . but people are working on DNA storage, and similar molecular data storage. I expect in 20 to 50 years our data storage will be as good as DNA. It might actually be DNA. Prof. Church at Harvard has stored and reproduced book in DNA. Storage and reading back is slow, but reproduction is far faster than any human technology. It is likely that small, cheap machines to read and write DNA will be developed, giving us hard disk-like storage billions of times denser than anything we now have. There is no reason to think this will not happen.


    Dancing robots. This ability will soon be in all robots at no cost, like our ability to store gigabytes of data is in every computer, cell phone and camera, at practically no cost:


    Do You Love Me? - YouTube

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.