Despite 20 Years Of Experience, Comcast/NBC Still Sucks At Olympics Coverage

from the fourth-circle-of-hell dept

NBC (now Comcast NBC Universal) has enjoyed the rights to broadcast the US Olympics since 1998. In 2011, the company paid $4.4 billion for exclusive US broadcast rights to air the Olympics through 2020. In 2014, Comcast NBC Universal shelled out another $7.75 billion for the rights to broadcast the summer and winter Olympics in the US... until the year 2032. Despite years of practice, we've repeatedly noted how the company has done a consistently terrible job at its core responsibility as the holder of those rights: namely, showing people things they actually want to see in a way that isn't annoying.

For years Comcast has been criticized for refusing to air events live, spoiling some events, implementing annoying cable paywall restrictions, implementing heavy handed and generally terrible advertising, often sensationalizing coverage, avoiding controversial subjects during broadcasts, and streaming efforts that have ranged from clumsy to outright incompetent.

You'd think after 20+ years of criticism Comcast NBC would be doing a better job. Then again, if you know Comcast NBC at all, the fact that they aren't (and have been historically completely oblivious to that fact) probably isn't all that surprising. And of course this year is no different.

While the internet and streaming have allowed Comcast/NBC to offer overall more content to viewers, the way it's being presented continues to be scattershot as hell. The company's coverage jumps from event to event in a head-jerking manner, failing to present much of a cohesive narrative from hour to hour:

"...instead of sticking with single events throughout primetime – introducing them, highlighting the stakes and the protagonists, getting the viewer comfortable with the quirks of competition – NBC has deployed this vast arsenal of broadcast resources to spray America’s households with a kind of inescapable Olympic televisual vomit.

A meaningful tip of the hat to the editor that let "televisual vomit" show up in the pages of The Guardian. And the chaos comes despite the fact that Olympics planners in Tokyo have increasingly tried to schedule events to make them more coherent to audiences in different time zones, especially the west:

"NBC’s programming choices have been consistently bizarre, even more so when you consider that whole chunks of the schedule in Tokyo – for swimming above all, but also in the athletics – were specifically rejigged to cater to the American TV audience, and at several points it’s been unclear to all but the most obsessive Olympics watchers whether what’s on TV at night in the US is live or a replay."

Spend a few moments over at Reddit and you can also find just a general and profound audience confusion in terms of when things will be broadcast, how and where you can watch event follow ups, and what the hell is going on. And while Comcast having its own streaming app (Peacock) should ideally make things better, that doesn't seem to be the case either. Promises of "free coverage" (with ads) via the app haven't been fulfilled because this is Comcast, and Comcast wants to use the opportunity to upsell you to either a streaming subscription or a traditional cable TV subscription if you want to see anything other than celebrity quips:

"Peacock will broadcast the team gymnastics finals for both men and women for free, but to watch any of the men’s basketball coverage you must upgrade to Peacock Premium—which costs $4.99 a month (unless, again, you already have Xfinity Internet or a cable subscription). It’s another $5 to get rid of ads."

Like most things Comcast/NBC does (see: broadband), it still expects to make a profit off of the Olympics thanks to ads, partnerships, viewer tracking data, and sponsored deals. This despite a lack of competence, Peacock itself being a money loser, sagging traditional cable subscriptions, and dipping ratings. Which is why complaints about Comcast/NBC Olympics coverage are more Sisyphean than productive, and we'll all be back here complaining again in a few years.

Filed Under: nbc, olympics, peacock, programming
Companies: comcast, nbc, olympics, universal

Insanity Wins As Appeals Court Overturns Google's Fair Use Victory For Java APIs

from the this-is-bad dept

Oh, CAFC. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has spent decades fucking up patent law, and now they're doing their damndest to fuck up copyright law as well. In case you'd forgotten, the big case between Oracle and Google over whether or not Google infringed on Oracle's copyrights is still going on -- and it appears it will still be going on for quite a while longer, as CAFC this morning came down with a laughably stupid opinion, overturning the district court's jury verdict, which had said that Google's use of a few parts of Java's API was protected by fair use. That jury verdict was kind of silly in the first place, because the whole trial (the second one in the case) made little sense, as basically everyone outside of Oracle and the CAFC had previously understood (correctly) that APIs are simply not covered by copyright.

Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act says quite clearly:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

And an API is pretty clearly a procedure, process, system or method of operation -- it's just instructions on how to access certain elements, similar to a recipe. But, CAFC (who shouldn't be hearing this case in the first place) simply couldn't be bothered to comprehend what an API is, and insisted that because to the judges non-technical brains, an API looks the same as software, it must be copyrightable as software. That was after Judge Alsup in the district court (following trial #1) had spent quite a lot of time explaining to CAFC why APIs are not copyrightable.

Thus, we had the second trial, which was weird, because all of the arguments about fair use, were couched in this weird "um, well, it's not really copyrightable at all, but CAFC says it's copyrightable, so let's just say it's fair use" argument. And the jury then said, yes, it's fair use.

But CAFC has now rejected that and sent the case back to the lower court for a third trial for damages. And, while we normally expect bad reasoning from CAFC decisions, this one is particularly stupid. In short, CAFC's reasoning is basically "we think this is infringement, and thus we're going to handwave around the law to make sure that it's infringement." It's bad. And, again, CAFC shouldn't even be hearing the case. CAFC hears appeals on patent cases, and originally there were a few patent claims in this case, but they all got dumped at a very early stage. So this case should have gone to the 9th Circuit (who also might have messed it up, but it has at least a marginally better record than CAFC).

Anyway, the CAFC does an awful lot of handwaving around historical precedent to justify its decision to basically start from scratch in going through the fair use four factors. As we've discussed multiple times, one of the problems with the four factors test is that it allows a court to choose who it likes better, and then twist the four factors to give it the outcome it wants. That appears to be what is happening here. On the first factor (nature of the use), CAFC basically says "we think the jury is stupid, this is obviously commercial use, and thus it goes against Google." Google had argued (and the jury had implicitly agreed) that because Google doesn't charge for Android, and interoperability and progress of innovation enabled by using similar API setups are not inherently commercial motives, that this was fair use. The court basically says "but Google has so much money!" which is not how a fair use argument works. But... CAFC.

That Google might also have non-commercial motives is irrelevant as a matter of law. As the Supreme Court made clear when The Nation magazine published excerpts from Harper & Row’s book, partly for the purpose of providing the public newsworthy information, the question “is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562. Second, although Google maintains that its revenue flows from advertisements, not from Android, commerciality does not depend on how Google earns its money. Indeed, “[d]irect economic benefit is not required to demonstrate a commercial use.” A&M Records, 239 F.3d at 1015. We find, therefore, that, to the extent we must assume the jury found Google’s use of the API packages to be anything other than overwhelmingly commercial, that conclusion finds no substantial evidentiary support in the record. Accordingly, Google’s commercial use of the API packages weighs against a finding of fair use.

On the question of transformative use, the lower court had suggested that using the APIs in a "fresh context" (such as for smartphones) could be seen as transformative. But, again CAFC says "nope."

Google’s arguments are without merit. As explained below, Google’s use of the API packages is not transformative as a matter of law because: (1) it does not fit within the uses listed in the preamble to § 107; (2) the purpose of the API packages in Android is the same as the purpose of the packages in the Java platform; (3) Google made no alteration to the expressive content or message of the copyrighted material; and (4) smartphones were not a new context.

CAFC also, once again, shows that it still doesn't understand why APIs and code are not the same thing:

That Google wrote its own implementing code is irrelevant to the question of whether use of the APIs was transformative. As we noted in the prior appeal, “no plagiarist can excuse the wrong by showing how much of his work he did not pirate.” Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1375 (quoting Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 565). The relevant question is whether Google altered “the expressive content or message of the original work” that it copied—not whether it rewrote the portions it did not copy.

But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is how the copied text is being used, and in Google's case it's in a completely different context, which is why it had to write its own implementing code. Again, this is fallout from CAFC's earlier wrong decision in that it still does not understand that API instructions are not the same as implementing code itself.

The court also more or less laughs at the idea that Google had "good faith" reasons for doing what it did:

Ultimately, we find that, even assuming the jury was unpersuaded that Google acted in bad faith, the highly commercial and non-transformative nature of the use strongly support the conclusion that the first factor weighs against a finding of fair use.

On factor two of the four factors analysis -- the nature of the work -- CAFC again actually gives that one to Google and says that the jury could have found that weighed towards fair use, but immediately points out that it's going to give this factor less weight, because... it still doesn't understand the difference between APIs and software, and insists that if it gave this factor any weight, it would destroy the idea of copyright for software. Of course, that's only true if you can't tell the difference between an API and software.

We note, moreover, that allowing this one factor to dictate a conclusion of fair use in all cases involving copying of software could effectively negate Congress’s express declaration—continuing unchanged for some forty years—that software is copyrightable. Accordingly, though the jury’s assumed view of the nature of the copyrighted work weighs in favor of finding fair use, it has less significance to the overall analysis.

On factor three, concerning the amount use, the court again is so incredibly confused it's frustrating. Google has long held (and the jury and the lower court appeared to agree) that it used the bare minimum of the Java API to enable basic interoperability in building apps for Android. But CAFC is so tied up in its own made up reality, that it insists no reasonable jury could agree with this:

Even assuming the jury accepted Google’s argument that it copied only a small portion of Java, no reasonable jury could conclude that what was copied was qualitatively insignificant, particularly when the material copied was important to the creation of the Android platform.

Eventually, though CAFC says factor 3 could be either "neutral" or "arguably weighs against" fair use.

On to factor four -- the impact on the market. Factors one and four tend to be the ones that courts focus on the most. And, here, Oracle has spent plenty of time whining that its own total failure to capitalize on Java in the mobile market should be blamed on Google's copying piece of its API as opposed to the reality, which is that Oracle completely botched its own efforts in the space, because it's Oracle. The court more or less ignores various points about how Oracle wasn't really in the mobile market and more or less says "Google was super successful, so clearly it was at the expense of Oracle."

Given the record evidence of actual and potential harm, we conclude that “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by” Google would result in “a substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the original” and its derivatives.

And, thus, the court then weighs factors one and four most heavily, and says it's not fair use, and back to Northern California we go for trial number three, specifically on the damages question. I imagine Google will appeal this, either asking for an en banc rehearing or to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court refused to hear the previous request on the question of copyrightability of APIs, so this is probably a long shot. However, there are a few oddities within the ruling that maybe will catch someone's attention at the Supreme Court (and the Supreme Court has spent years dunking on CAFC and mocking its dumb decisions, so maybe they'd like to do that again).

Honestly, the most concerning part of the whole thing is how much of a mess CAFC has made of the whole process. The court ruled correctly originally that APIs are not subject to copyright. CAFC threw that out and ordered the court to have a jury determine the fair use question. The jury found it to be fair use, and even though CAFC had ordered the issue be heard by a jury, it now says "meh, we disagree with the jury." That's... bizarre.

Anyway, considering the importance of interoperability in software, this case is yet another potential disaster, limited only by the fact that CAFC doesn't cover any particular region and most copyright cases aren't influenced by CAFC precedent since those cases would flow up through the other appeals courts. However, you can see how someone wishing to go after others for API infringement might just throw in a silly patent claim just get it into CAFC. Hopefully the Supreme Court steps in and fixes this, but if not, it would be nice (I know, I know...) if Congress actually stepped up and pointed out that APIs are not covered by copyright at all. And while they're at it, they should burn CAFC to the ground. It was a dumb idea in the first place and should be shut down.

Filed Under: api, apis, cafc, copyright, fair use, interfaces, interoperability, programming
Companies: google, oracle

Daily Deal: Programming Into the Future Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

Pay what you want for the Programming Into the Future Bundle and receive two courses covering Sass for CSS and Bootstrap 4. If you beat the average price, you get an additional 6 courses. They cover Angular 2, Node.js, Python, Docker and more to help keep your skills up to date.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: course, daily deal, programming

How Java's Inherent Verboseness May Mess Up Fair Use For APIs

from the this-whole-case-is-fucked-up dept

The latest round of the Oracle/Google API copyright lawsuit has been an attention grabber to say the least. There's plenty of absurdity to go around, but in reading through the coverage and commentary, it became clear that part of the problem is actually in the nature of Java as a statically typed, verbose language. To me, the crux of the case has been in the fact that non-technical people don't seem to get that software and APIs are different things. They don't get that an API is more like a map or a menu, rather than the actual stuff itself. The API is basically just explaining how to get information, not what the information itself actually is.

But this distinction is lost on people who aren't very technical. Sarah Jeong, whose coverage of this case on both Twitter and Motherboard has been phenomenal, wrote a great piece last week calling out this distinction:

The problem with Oracle v. Google is that everyone actually affected by the case knows what an API is, but the whole affair is being decided by people who don’t, from the normals in the jury box to the normals at the Supreme Court—which declined to hear the case in 2015, on the advice of the normals at the Solicitor General’s office, who perhaps did not grasp exactly how software works.

In fact, during the jury selection process, it appears that an effort was made to make sure no one even remotely technical got onto the jury. So much for a jury of your peers, right?

But, a further point drove home for me just how messed up this whole thing is -- along with the recognition that part of the problem is in just how verbose Java is. Last week, one of the witnesses in the case was a top Android programmer, Dan Bornstein, who was actually asked to write some code on a white board, to show what "declaring code" is, as compared to the actual implementation code. While no photos are allowed in the courtroom, EFF's Parker Higgins (who also has been known to guest post here on occasion), did his best to recreate what Bornstein drew:

Here's my artist's rendition of the Bornstein sketch. Not perfect, but his handwriting and drawing aren't better. pic.twitter.com/aNu8ZAyXMP

— Parker Higgins ☔ (@xor) May 13, 2016

In response to this, on Twitter, programmer Aviv Ovadya, showed what the same thing would look like in Python, rather than Java:

@xor Translated to Python. Usually Java's verboseness just makes code a pain to write; now it may also mess up law. pic.twitter.com/WzOmcyRwyU

— Aviv (@metaviv) May 14, 2016

And the even clearer, side-by-side version:

@sarahjeong @xor Actual side by side version of the Java vs. Python versions for the court whiteboarding pic.twitter.com/Dd58egcaF2

— Aviv (@metaviv) May 14, 2016

Python is a dynamically typed language, rather than statically typed, meaning that the declaring code is much more concise, and much more obviously a specification of what's needed, rather than code designed to do something directly. In the Java version, if you don't have a fair bit of experience with programming, the difference between the declaring code and the implementation is not that clear. It looks pretty similar. That's why it's probably no surprise that in asking the Supreme Court to reject hearing this case, the Solicitor General of the US wrote:

Nothing about the declaring code at issue here materially distinguishes it from other computer code

As we pointed out at the time, this is just wrong. The declaring code explains the interface for communicating with computer code. The implementation is actual computer code. They're not the same. But in Java... they look pretty similar because Java is so verbose, and requires much more detailed declaring code. In the Python version, the differences are much, much clearer, and you can see how the declaring code is basically just a specification for something you want, rather than a bit of creative coding to do something new.

And thus, what we're left with is the fact that, in part because of how Java works, the declaring code looks too much like regular code and that confuses the hell out of basically anyone who's not a programmer. Remember how, in the first version of this trial, Judge William Alsup first had to teach himself Java to understand why an API should not be covered by copyright? Unfortunately, the appeals court justices (and Supreme Court Justices) did no such thing, and couldn't understand the inherent difference here, sending the case back to Judge Alsup's courtroom.

And, now, even with it being "fact" that APIs are covered by copyright in certain cases in the 9th Circuit (hopefully other courts have a chance to fix this at some point soon...), we're still facing the same kind of argument.

Technically, this round for the trial is supposed to focus solely on whether or not Google's use of the Java APIs is "fair use" under copyright law. But that has made for some weird discussions in the trial, because you don't need fair use if there's no copyright in the first place. And since many people involved were operating under the (reasonable!) assumption that there was no copyright in the API, it's made for some weird discussions in the trial, where everyone has to dance around the copyrightability question. In fact, there's been some discussion between the judge and the two companies over whether or not the jury should even be informed about the results of the first case and the subsequent appeals process.

In the end, it's creating a very messy case, and a big part of that mess is because code is confusing to non-techie folks, and Java's inherent design appears to make it even more confusing -- which does not bode well for copyright and APIs going forward. And that could create a really big mess in the software world. Lots of people who dislike Java have claimed for a long time that it is inherently awful, in part because of how verbose it is. But perhaps they didn't realize that factor might wreck some important concepts in software development far beyond just Java programming itself.

Filed Under: apis, copyright, declaring code, java, languages, programming, python, verboseness
Companies: google, oracle

Daily Deal: C# Coding Bootcamp

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

C# is a powerful, versatile and cross-platform language. Take the 11 course C# Coding Bootcamp and begin to master the basics. With 89+ hours of instruction, you'll learn the basics of C#, how to create clean and efficient code, how to build apps in Microsoft Visual Studio, and so much more. Head over to the Techdirt Deals store and pick up this bundle for $69.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: coding, daily deal, programming

Challenged By Cord Cutting, The Discovery Channel Seeks Redemption In The Wake Of Honey Boo Boo

from the core-competency dept

In the quest for ad dollars and viewer eyeballs over the last decade, there's a laundry list of cable channels that veered off course, deciding that the quick and easy money made from airing shocking garbage was worth more than having a respected brand. And that worked, for a while. The Weather Channel began airing shows about gold prospectors. The History Channel started airing -- whatever the hell this is. And The Discovery Channel made a small fortune by airing shows like Honey Boo Boo, highlighting assorted nitwits in various stages of mental and verbal incontinence.

But in the last year or two with the rise of cord cutting, things have been changing. For example, veering away from its core mission started to hurt The Weather Channel badly. Not only were customers looking for the actual god-damned weather now heading to online options, but cable operators started dropping the channel from their lineups, arguing that the dreck being served up wasn't worth the cost of admission. After some whining and scattered hissy fits, The Weather Channel finally announced it needed to return to its core focus: the weather (and weathermen standing around idiotically in said weather).

The Discovery Channel also appears to have come to something vaguely resembling its senses. The channel announced recently that it has realized the error of its ways (ie putting sensationalist tripe above brand quality) and will begin trying to redeem its image and brand in the wake of reality television:

"One day we just came in and looked at each other and said, 'You know, no more bearded guys in the kitchen with f---ing pigs running through the living room,'"  Discovery head David Zaslav, the highest-paid chief executive in the United States, said one recent afternoon in his eighth-floor office in Manhattan. "Let's get back to who we really are. We’re about satisfying curiosity. Let's forget about the ratings right now and let's chase what the brand is at its best."

As an obvious sign of the apocalypse, MTV executives are even insisting that the channel will focus on a little something called music in 2016:

MTV exec says the network will focus a bit more on music #TCA16

— Lisa Richwine (@LARichwine) January 6, 2016

A big reason for all of this soul searching is the rise of Internet video and the corresponding dip in ratings. Tired of bi-annual rate hikes and the fact that consumers pay for 189 channels but only actually watch 17, consumers are driving a fundamental shift in the way video content is consumed. Soon, individual channels will either be offered a la carte or as part of limited channel packs included in so-called "skinny bundles." Channels like Discovery are worried that under this new paradigm, low-quality fare you "put on just to have something on" won't past muster. So they're returning to quality:

"To distinguish itself, Discovery has doubled down on its old-school core of natural history, animal conservation and adventure specials. The media giant tapped John Hoffman, an HBO veteran known for rigorous looks at American obesity and Alzheimer's disease, to become its new boss of documentaries, with the mandate to ignore ratings and shoot for big talkers with award potential and strong reviews."

And while it's entirely possible that cord cutters and cord trimmers still want to watch garbage, the belief is that a return to quality in a specific area of expertise is going to be the only way to stand out among an ocean of sameness. There were 409 original scripted series in 2015, double that of 2009. And in an era when consumers will have more power than ever, HBO, Netflix, and Amazon have all shown that focusing on the quality of your original programming really does matter again. Hopefully, this is an early indication that our long, dark, Honey Boo Boo nightmare may soon be over.

Filed Under: cord cutting, discovery channel, honey boo boo, programming, tv
Companies: discovery

Daily Deal: Pure Python Hacker Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

class DailyDeal(object):

  def __init__(self):
  
    self.Deal =         "The Pure Python Hacker Bundle"
    self.Description =  "Six courses with over 45 hours of instruction."
                            
    self.Topics =       ["Basics", "Websites & Apps", "Bash Scripting", "More"]

    self.OrigPrice =    454
    self.SalePrice =    49   # That's $49, or 89% off the original price
    
  def BuyNow(self):
    
    print "Get it today from Techdirt Deals »"


# We earn a portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals.
# The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal, online course, programming, python

DailyDirt: Learning How To Do Math Like A Boss

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Some people claim that they are not "math people" -- that their brains just don't understand mathematics that way "normal" people are supposed to learn it. Perhaps that's true for some, but the subject of math seems to be taught in a way that tends to weed people out as concepts get more abstract. Educators are trying to figure out how to avoid making math lessons as painful as they might have been in the past (and hopefully not create any further torture with "new math" or even "newer new math"). Here are just a few links on changing the way these skills are taught.

• Math classes are usually taught as a progression of skills, starting with counting, then adding/subtraction, then multiplication/division, then algebra, maybe some geometry/trig, and ending in calculus. However, a growing trend of abolishing this artificial math progression could have toddlers learning calculus concepts -- and other "advanced" math topics -- in a non-linear order. [url]
• Psychologists see evidence that preschoolers have a natural ability to do basic algebra before they ever sit in a classroom. This ability seems to come from kids' "Approximate Number System" (ANS) or "number sense" -- which allows children to solve simple algebra problems without a systematic logic. Researchers would like to figure out how this number sense breaks down as kids go to school and appear to lose these inherent abilities. [url]
• There's a trend to try to teach *everyone* how to program, but maybe if we're really serious about doing that, we should change the way programming is done. Forcing humans to think like computers isn't going to make programming very popular, so making human-friendly programming languages might be the way to go. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: algebra, ans, approximate number system, calculus, coding, education, intuition, learning, math, number sense, preschoolers, programming, stem, teachers, teaching

DailyDirt: Don't Let Your Computers Grow Up To Be Cowboys

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Machine learning is a fascinating field that is increasingly becoming a part of more and more aspects of our lives. Not too far in the future, we're supposed to have all kinds of robot helpers -- driving cars for us and doing all the boring jobs. We're not quite there yet, but it may only be a matter of time before it's common for a robot to ask, "Do you want fries with that?" Here are just a few interesting examples of machines learning how to be more like us.

• ConceptNet 4, a version of an artificial intelligence developed at MIT, has scored about as well as a human 4 year old on an IQ assessment designed for young children. ConceptNet is programmed to make some common-sense associations, but it doesn't do well on answering "why" questions. At least we've gotten AI past the terrible two's.... [url]
• Neural networks are one method for modeling how biological brains and nervous systems work, and these simulations are getting better at mimicking how actual brains learn. Increasingly complex Boltzmann machines are learning to perform activities similarly to how a person would -- and making some of the same mistakes that people do, too. [url]
• Programming computers to use our spoken language is difficult because people often use the same word to convey very different meanings, and dictionaries aren't much help to a computer for making clear distinctions between these meanings. Computational models poring over vast amounts of unstructured data on words can generate more computer-friendly dictionaries that map word meanings into groups. The result could be automated paraphrasing programs that can re-state a sentence without completely changing its meaning. [url]
• A startup called Vicarious is developing software that tries to process visual information like human brains do. Building a better neural network algorithm could create commercial software that can do things like help diagnose medical images. Expert systems were supposed to replace doctors decades ago, but maybe the technology has finally caught up with the science fiction predictions? [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: algorithms, artificial intelligence, brain simulations, computers, language, machine learning, neural networks, programming, unstructured data
Companies: vicarious