Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Richard Dismissal as gibberish is one of the oldest and cheapest rhetorical tricks in History and the signpost of a feeble mind. I would save a mention of you in my memoirs, but that would still be far too generous ... JLM ^ John, You make a mistake common to many people who make claims such as yours: you deliver some incoherent gibberish and claim that it is a theory of everything, then you tell the world that it is the world's responsibility to prove you wrong. Incoherent gibberish cannot be proven wrong. It is part of the very definition of incoherent gibberish, that such stuff cannot be proven wrong. Harvey Newstrom was quite right: this is borderline spam. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
- Original Message - From: Harvey Newstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Fw: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, There is nothing at all spam-like about publicizing a new and worthy addition to global knowledge and harmony. Publicize it on your own websites. People can find it if they want. You don't have to repeatedly post the same stuff over and over to a bunch of different forums. And how many years does it take before this stuff isn't new anymore? My project is so massive it was necessary to release it in a series of eight books over ten years... each with its own website -- each with its own unique appications (not rebranding) Excuuuse me for living Instead of your ad hominem insinuations, why not focus on the issues and enlighten me as to where this new system is not valid or sound, if you can ?? Instead of your claims of ad hominem insinuations, why not focus on the issues and enlighten me as to how your posts are not repeated advertising of the same stuff over and over and over? Your website says --- Harvey Newstrom ... challenges assumptions and reveals when things aren't as they seem. He believes this to be the key to any investigation, development, or research. If, indeed, I have discovered (your words) a new unified theory for psychology, spirituality, classifying emotions, decoding mental illness, linking faith and science, revolutionizing family values, reinventing spirituality for a new millennium, a grand unified theory of ethics and morality, AI, singularity, robotics, etc. (which is all true) You would think you would live up to your own hype and take me up my challenge to prove me wrong www.charactervalues.org *** I rest my case. We don't need almost a dozen links to the same theory that you insist on posting here again. One link or one posting would do it. If anybody is interested, they will respond. * You can't rest a case you haven't even opened yet ... The problem is everyone fancies themselves a critic, but most are too smug to put in the work ... John E LaMuth MS RAMA DAHMA DINGH DANG^_^ ** -- Harvey Newstrom www.HarveyNewstrom.com CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
John LaMuth wrote: - Original Message - From: Harvey Newstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com mailto:agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:18 PM Subject: Fw: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, There is nothing at all spam-like about publicizing a new and worthy addition to global knowledge and harmony. Publicize it on your own websites. People can find it if they want. You don't have to repeatedly post the same stuff over and over to a bunch of different forums. And how many years does it take before this stuff isn't new anymore? My project is so massive it was necessary to release it in a series of eight books over ten years... each with its own website -- each with its own unique appications (not rebranding) Excuuuse me for living Instead of your ad hominem insinuations, why not focus on the issues and enlighten me as to where this new system is not valid or sound, if you can ?? Instead of your claims of ad hominem insinuations, why not focus on the issues and enlighten me as to how your posts are not repeated advertising of the same stuff over and over and over? Your website says --- /Harvey Newstrom ... challenges assumptions and reveals when things aren't as they seem. He believes this to be the key to any investigation, development, or research./ If, indeed, I have discovered (your words) a new unified theory for psychology, spirituality, classifying emotions, decoding mental illness, linking faith and science, revolutionizing family values, reinventing spirituality for a new millennium, a grand unified theory of ethics and morality, AI, singularity, robotics, etc. (which is all true) You would think you would live up to your own hype and take me up my challenge to prove me wrong www.charactervalues.org http://www.charactervalues.org *** I rest my case. We don't need almost a dozen links to the same theory that you insist on posting here again. One link or one posting would do it. If anybody is interested, they will respond. * You can't rest a case you haven't even opened yet ... The problem is everyone fancies themselves a critic, but most are too smug to put in the work ... John E LaMuth MS John, You make a mistake common to many people who make claims such as yours: you deliver some incoherent gibberish and claim that it is a theory of everything, then you tell the world that it is the world's responsibility to prove you wrong. Incoherent gibberish cannot be proven wrong. It is part of the very definition of incoherent gibberish, that such stuff cannot be proven wrong. Harvey Newstrom was quite right: this is borderline spam. Richard Loosemore --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Google Glory/Prudence Providence/Faith Grace/Beauty Tranquility/Ecstasy to see about a hundred of these postings spammed all over the Internet since 2001. They are always the same stuff rebranded as a new unified theory for psychology, spirituality, classifying emotions, decoding mental illness, linking faith and science, revolutionizing family values, reinventing spirituality for a new millennium, a grand unified theory of ethics and morality, AI, singularity, robotics, etc. See www.charactervalues.com to see this information directly, so you won't have to read it here. -- Harvey Newstrom www.HarveyNewstrom.com CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
There is nothing at all spam-like about publicizing a new and worthy addition to global knowledge and harmony. Instead of your ad hominem insinuations, why not focus on the issues and enlighten me as to where this new system is not valid or sound, if you can ?? John E. LaMuth BAMA JAMA MAMMA http://www.charactervalues.com http://www.charactervalues.org http://www.charactervalues.net http://www.ethicalvalues.com http://www.ethicalvalues.info http://www.emotionchip.net http://www.global-solutions.org http://www.world-peace.org http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html http://www.forebrain.org # - Original Message - From: Harvey Newstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:32 AM Subject: Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS Google Glory/Prudence Providence/Faith Grace/Beauty Tranquility/Ecstasy to see about a hundred of these postings spammed all over the Internet since 2001. They are always the same stuff rebranded as a new unified theory for psychology, spirituality, classifying emotions, decoding mental illness, linking faith and science, revolutionizing family values, reinventing spirituality for a new millennium, a grand unified theory of ethics and morality, AI, singularity, robotics, etc. See www.charactervalues.com to see this information directly, so you won't have to read it here. -- Harvey Newstrom www.HarveyNewstrom.com CISSP CISA CISM CIFI GSEC IAM ISSAP ISSMP ISSPCS IBMCP --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
What does it do? useful in AGI? Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
2008/7/22 Mike Archbold [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It looks to me to be borrowed from Aristotle's ethics. Back in my college days, I was trying to explain my project and the professor kept interrupting me to ask: What does it do? Tell me what it does. I don't understand what your system does. What he wanted was input-function-output. He didn't care about my fancy data structure or architecture goals, he just wanted to know what it DID. I have come across this a lot. And while it is a very useful heuristic for sniffing out bad ideas that don't do anything I also think it is harmful to certain other endeavours. Imagine this hypothetical conversation between Turing and someone else (please ignore all historical inaccuracies). Sceptic: Hey Turing, how is it going. Hmm, what are you working on at the moment? Turing: A general purpose computing machine. Sceptic: I'm not really sure what you mean by computing. Can you give me an example of something it does? Turing: Well you can use it calculate differential equations Sceptic: So it is a calculator, we already have machines that can do that. Turing: Well it can also be a chess player. Sceptic: Wait, what? How can something be a chess player and a calculator? Turing: Well it isn't both at the same time, but you can reconfigure it to do one then the other. Sceptic: If you can reconfigure something, that means it doesn't intrinsically do one or the other. So what does the machine do itself? Turing: Well, err, nothing. I think the quest for general intelligence (if we are to keep any meaning in the word general), will have be hindered by trying to pin down what candidate systems do, in the same way general computing would be. I think the requisite question in AGI to fill the gap formed by not allowing this question, is, How does it change? Will --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: What does it do? useful in AGI? Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Will: Mike Archbold [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It looks to me to be borrowed from Aristotle's ethics. Back in my college days, I was trying to explain my project and the professor kept interrupting me to ask: What does it do? Tell me what it does. I don't understand what your system does. What he wanted was input-function-output. He didn't care about my fancy data structure or architecture goals, he just wanted to know what it DID. I have come across this a lot. And while it is a very useful heuristic for sniffing out bad ideas that don't do anything I also think it is harmful to certain other endeavours. Imagine this hypothetical conversation between Turing and someone else (please ignore all historical inaccuracies). Sceptic: Hey Turing, how is it going. Hmm, what are you working on at the moment? Turing: A general purpose computing machine. Sceptic: I'm not really sure what you mean by computing. Can you give me an example of something it does? Turing: Well you can use it calculate differential equations Sceptic: So it is a calculator, we already have machines that can do that. Turing: Well it can also be a chess player. Sceptic: Wait, what? How can something be a chess player and a calculator? Turing: Well it isn't both at the same time, but you can reconfigure it to do one then the other. Sceptic: If you can reconfigure something, that means it doesn't intrinsically do one or the other. So what does the machine do itself? Turing: Well, err, nothing. I think the quest for general intelligence (if we are to keep any meaning in the word general), will have be hindered by trying to pin down what candidate systems do, in the same way general computing would be. I think the requisite question in AGI to fill the gap formed by not allowing this question, is, How does it change? Will, You're actually almost answering the [correct and proper] question: what does it do? But you basically end up as with that sub problem, evading it. What a General Intelligence does is basically simple. It generalizes creatively - it connects different domains - it learns skills and ideas in one domain, and then uses them to learn skills and ideas in other domains. It learns how to play checkers, and then chess, and then war games, and then geometry. A computer is in principle a general intelligence - a machine that can do all these things - like the brain. But in practice it has to be programmed separately for each specialised skill and can only learn within a specialised domain. It has so far been unable to be truly general purpose - and think and learn across domains.. The core problem - what a general intelligence must DO therefore - is to generalize creatively - to connect different domains - chalk and cheese, storms and teacups, chess pieces and horses and tanks . [I presume that is what you are getting at with: How does it change?] That's your sub problem - the sub can't move. All the standard domain checks for non-movement - battery failure, loose wire etc. - show nothing. The sub, if it's an AGI, must find the altogether new kind of reason in a new domain, that is preventing it moving. (Perhaps it was some mistyped but reasonable, or otherwise ambiguous, command. Perhaps it's some peculiar kind of external suction..). What makes creative generalization so difficult (and 'creative') is that no domain follows rationally (i.e. logico-mathematically or strictly linguistically) from another. You cannot deduce chalk from cheese, or chess from checkers. And you cannot in fact deduce almost any branch of rational systems themselves from any other - Riemannian geometry, for example, does not follow logically or geometrically or statistically or via Bayes from Euclidean, any more than topology or fractals. The FIRST thing AGI'ers should be discussing is how they propose to solve the what-does-it-do problem of creative generalization - or, at any rate, what are their thoughts and ideas so far. You think they're being wise by universally avoiding this problem - *the* problem. I think they're just chicken. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: What does it do? useful in AGI? Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
2008/7/22 Mike Archbold [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It looks to me to be borrowed from Aristotle's ethics. Back in my college days, I was trying to explain my project and the professor kept interrupting me to ask: What does it do? Tell me what it does. I don't understand what your system does. What he wanted was input-function-output. He didn't care about my fancy data structure or architecture goals, he just wanted to know what it DID. I have come across this a lot. And while it is a very useful heuristic for sniffing out bad ideas that don't do anything I also think it is harmful to certain other endeavours. Imagine this hypothetical conversation between Turing and someone else (please ignore all historical inaccuracies). Sceptic: Hey Turing, how is it going. Hmm, what are you working on at the moment? Turing: A general purpose computing machine. Sceptic: I'm not really sure what you mean by computing. Can you give me an example of something it does? Turing: Well you can use it calculate differential equations Sceptic: So it is a calculator, we already have machines that can do that. Turing: Well it can also be a chess player. Sceptic: Wait, what? How can something be a chess player and a calculator? Turing: Well it isn't both at the same time, but you can reconfigure it to do one then the other. Sceptic: If you can reconfigure something, that means it doesn't intrinsically do one or the other. So what does the machine do itself? Turing: Well, err, nothing. I think the quest for general intelligence (if we are to keep any meaning in the word general), will have be hindered by trying to pin down what candidate systems do, in the same way general computing would be. I think the requisite question in AGI to fill the gap formed by not allowing this question, is, How does it change? Will Will, I see what you mean that trying to pin down input-function-output too early in the AGI game would be a hinderance, since by the general nature it kind of assumes these in an ideal way, but it seems to me that if the poster is at the patent stage he should have this specified, otherwise it sounds like patenting an idea that needs a lot more work to me. Mike Archbold --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?; Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Matt A number of key approaches to AI, such as brain modeling through neural networks, have repeatedly been attempted, although scarcely enough detailed information exists about the brain to warrant any such serious inroads. In actuality, the key solution to developing convincing artificial intelligence invokes an innate understanding of human language in general. Indeed, the preeminent test for AI devised by Alan Turing abstains from relying upon any direct measure of consciousness or perception for its determination, rather targeting only the communicative factors underlying human language. Consequently, assuming the symbolic attributes of human language could be convincingly simulated on the computer, then many decades of needless effort could potentially be cut from either the neural-net or consciousness/perceptual approaches. Along these lines, the recent U.S. patent (#6,587,846) and the newly released Transitional enhancement (# 7,236,963) have recently been granted for precisely such a technical approach based upon the symbolic attributes underlying affective language. Clear precedents already exist within the field with respect to chess-playing computers that prove particularly adequate for modeling the symbolisms underlying such an abstract gaming format (although scarcely capable of anything else). In a similar fashion, the symbolic attributes of the language tradition prove a similarly comprehensive goal, although several orders of magnitude more abstract and complex in this regard. Certainly the primary economic focus of society as a whole is mediated chiefly through the symbolisms of human communication, specifying language as the most rational focal point for ongoing research. This is not necessarily meant to imply that a sensory/motor enabled robot designed to make sense of its immediate environment is not a rational focus for directed research. Indeed, such an achievement could eventually be merged with the currently proposed language simulation model to permit a more conceptually complete computer avatar. As far as the most economically direct human applications are concerned, however, it proves entirely more cost effective to initially target the symbolic attributes of human language (in all of its various manifestations). Fortunately, a convenient shortcut to the daunting complexity of this direct language simulation has recently been proposed (the technical basis for the aforementioned patent). This new approach directly focuses upon the motivational (or emotional/affective) aspects of language as its guiding principle, with the remaining bulk of value-neutral language filling-in in an accessory role. Indeed, as Robert Warren Penn once insightfully wrote: What is man but his passions? Along similar lines, most neuroscientists consider the mind/brain complex as a vast motivational analyzer that enables the individual to flourish in harmony with the environment. Indeed, by focusing primarily upon the affective aspects of human language, an economically feasible shortcut to the AI simulation of human communication finally appears within reach. Much detailed programming remains to be done, perhaps necessitating a customized coding language (and supportive hardware) consistent with a project of this magnitude. With a starting staff roughly the size of a large encyclopedia work force, a first generation simulation could potentially be achieved within a fairly modest time frame. Subsequent design generations would further endeavor to achieve even greater clarity and versatility. This painstaking process might eventually be more dramatically accelerated if ultimately accorded the status of a national initiative, particularly in light of its outright commercial value in terms of friendly AI JLM http://www.charactervalues.com http://www.charactervalues.org http://www.charactervalues.net http://www.ethicalvalues.com http://www.ethicalvalues.info http://www.emotionchip.net http://www.global-solutions.org http://www.world-peace.org http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html http://www.forebrain.org - Original Message - From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:02 AM Subject: Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS --- On Tue, 7/22/08, John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assuming I'm a Troll is pretty harsh, isnt it ? I looked at your patent. Nowadays you can patent any kind of nonsense. USPTO finds it easier to just grant the patent and let the courts sort it out. The plaintiff hires an expert who says X infringes on Y. The defendant hires an expert who says X does not infringe on Y. The judge, who doesn't know anything about X or Y, tries to figure out who's lying. So perhaps if you actually have a contribution to AGI, you can point us to a published paper
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Jan Klauck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Opinions ? Can your (ethical) AI read the content of the following link, translate it conceptually from physics to AI and give us a friendly answer (including a score)? http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html Nice! :-)) Putting together agi-crackpot.html (+ maybe agi-hotshot.html) would probably be helpful for our community. Jiri --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
potential applications extend to the roles of switchboard/receptionist and personal assistant/companion (in a time-share mode). Opinions ? John L http://www.ethicalvalues.com http://www.ethicalvalues.info http://www.emotionchip.net http://www.global-solutions.org http://www.world-peace.org http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/schematics.html http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/behaviorism.html http://www.forebrain.org http://www.charactervalues.com http://www.charactervalues.org http://www.charactervalues.net - Original Message - From: Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS Matt, Never underestimate the industriousness of a PATENT TROLL. He's already been granted a new patent for the same concept, except (apparently, I haven't read the patent yet, this time for an ethical chip). Patent #7236963 (awarded in 2007) for the emotion chip. Don't worry, it's as indefensible as the first one. Same random buzzword generator, different title. The problem is giving one of these morons a technology patent is like giving an ADHD kid a loaded gun. You know they're just looking to use it as blackmail for some quick royalty fees. The posting here was, no doubt, for intimidation purposes. Of course, somebody ought to tell him the AGI crowd doesn't have much use for a solution to the ethical artificial intelligence problem (whatever the hell that is). Indeed, even after he tells us what it is, it still doesn't make any sense. And I quote from the (first) patent's Abstract A new model of motivational behavior, described as a ten-level metaperspectival hierarchy of... Say what? There is no such word as metaperspectival. Not in English, at least. Yet, that's the word he uses to define his invention. But, it gets better... ...ethical terms, serves as the foundation for an ethical simulation of artificial intelligence. Well, I'm glad he intends to conduct his simulation ethically. I think what he really meant, however, was “a simulation of ethical artificial intelligence.” He does get half a grammar point for using the correct article (“an”) before “ethical.” You don't see that much these days. But, ah... we have another problem here. You see, artificial intelligence IS ALREADY a simulation. In particular, it is a simulation of human intelligence. Hence the word artificial. At least, that's the idea. Does he really mean his patent applies to a simulation of a simulation? Given that most existing AI software is computationally intensive and gasping for breath most of the time, that's got to be one slow-ass AI invention! Again, from the Abstract of the first patent... This AI system is organized as a tandem, nested...” Sigh. Where I come from (planet earth), tandem and nested are mutually exclusive modifiers. It's either tandem (i.e., “along side of” or “behind each other”) or it's nested (i.e., “inside of”). Can't be both at the same time. Sorry. Continuing, still in the Abstract... “...overseen by a master control unit – expert system (coordinating the motivational interchanges over real time).” OMG. Let me see if I have this straight. He has succeeded in patenting a simulation of a simulation with a “master control unit” that is, itself, another simulation. The only thing that contraption will do in real time is sit there looking stupid. That's presuming he could make it work which, as far as I can tell by scanning his patent, is right up there with the probability we'll solve the energy crises and the greenhouse effect using cold fusion. I have a good dozen of these gems, most of them from the Abstract alone. It gets REALLY weird when you read the patent description where he talks about how this invention solves the affective language understanding problem heretofore unsolved. News Alert: the entire NLP problem has yet to be solved (after 50 of trying by some of the best minds in the world). I have a PDF version of the newer patent (#7236963) which I will send (off-list) to anyone interested. Be advised, it's 3MB+ in size. Alternatively, you can read about it (see a picture of Mr. LaMuth, and download the PDF) at www.emotionchip.net. I also have a PDF version of the other, earlier, patent he holds (#6587846) – the supposed “recently issued” patent (actually, granted in 2003). I will also send this off-list to anyone interested (it's only about 1.3MB). Frankly, the reason these PDFs are so large is that every page is a graphic image. The documents contain no data stored as text (that I could find). This is pretty typical with U.S. Patent Office documents. Somebody there really likes (or liked) the TIFF image format. Unfortunately, this makes the Search function in Acrobat (or FoxIt Reader) completely useless. BTW, this guy apparently uses a dialup ISP. Yeah. State of the art
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Brad Paulsen Said: Mr. LaMuth, You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to a person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest apologies... ..That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to give you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using current hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also post, in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b) you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration). I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly remorseful about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me. ;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started right away. Cheers, Brad --- Dude... Get a life. I mean that in the friendliest way possible, but honestly. Get a life. Jim Bromer * From: Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * To: agi@v2.listbox.com * Subject: Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS * Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:37:16 -0500 Mr. LaMuth, You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to a person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest apologies. You do, however, appear to be a non-practicing entity (NPE). Wikipedia defines this term as ...a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention (same article). The patent you cited was first applied for in 2000 (actually in 1999 if we count the provisional patent) and approved in 2003. This is hardly a “recently issued” patent as you claimed in your initial post to this list. Since you did not mention any applicable existing products, or products currently under development (or even claimed to have a proof-of-concept prototype working and available for examination by interested parties), I think you can see where a reasonable person would have cause to believe your post may have had some other purpose. As to your claim to have initially posted here looking for “...aid in developing...” your invention, I must, also, assume you are being sincere. But, there is nothing in your initial posting to this mailing list that supports this assumption in any way, shape or form. There is no mention of having acquired any funding, no mention of a job opening, nor is there mention of any intent on your part to seek a development partner (individual or company). That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to give you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using current hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also post, in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b) you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration). I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly remorseful about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me. ;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started right away. Cheers, Brad --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Ah... And just what the hell is your problem? And I mean that in the friendliest way possible. Just what the HELL is your problem? Brad Jim Bromer wrote: Brad Paulsen Said: Mr. LaMuth, You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to a person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest apologies... ..That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to give you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using current hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also post, in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b) you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration). I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly remorseful about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me. ;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started right away. Cheers, Brad --- Dude... Get a life. I mean that in the friendliest way possible, but honestly. Get a life. Jim Bromer * *From:* Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] * *To:* agi@v2.listbox.com * *Subject:* Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS * *Date:* Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:37:16 -0500 Mr. LaMuth, You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to a person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest apologies. You do, however, appear to be a non-practicing entity (NPE). Wikipedia defines this term as ...a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention (same article). The patent you cited was first applied for in 2000 (actually in 1999 if we count the provisional patent) and approved in 2003. This is hardly a “recently issued” patent as you claimed in your initial post to this list. Since you did not mention any applicable existing products, or products currently under development (or even claimed to have a proof-of-concept prototype working and available for examination by interested parties), I think you can see where a reasonable person would have cause to believe your post may have had some other purpose. As to your claim to have initially posted here looking for “...aid in developing...” your invention, I must, also, assume you are being sincere. But, there is nothing in your initial posting to this mailing list that supports this assumption in any way, shape or form. There is no mention of having acquired any funding, no mention of a job opening, nor is there mention of any intent on your part to seek a development partner (individual or company). That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to give you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using current hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also post, in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b) you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration). I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly remorseful about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me. ;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started right away. Cheers, Brad
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Brad No apology necessary ... Indeed, I owe everyone one myself for my somewhat brash entrance into the group. That said, I can appreciate your track record in the IT field, and I accept your gracious offer of expert analysis and your stipulations I trust that you will produce nothing less than a brutally honest analysis... I don't think that anyone can deny the great volume of work that has gone into this AI system (spanning 25 years of development). And for the record, I am, indeed, seeking development partnership(s) and a generous finders fee is guaranteed to any who may prove instrumental towards commercial licensure. Gratefully John LaMuth www.emotionchip.net - Original Message - From: Brad Paulsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS Mr. LaMuth, You are correct, sir. I should not have called you a patent troll. It was not only harsh, it was inaccurate. I was under the impression the term applied to a person or company holding a patent said person or company was not also developing, or imminently planning to develop, as a product. According to Wikipedia, however, this is not the correct definition of the term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll). Please accept my sincerest apologies. You do, however, appear to be a non-practicing entity (NPE). Wikipedia defines this term as ...a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented invention (same article). The patent you cited was first applied for in 2000 (actually in 1999 if we count the provisional patent) and approved in 2003. This is hardly a “recently issued” patent as you claimed in your initial post to this list. Since you did not mention any applicable existing products, or products currently under development (or even claimed to have a proof-of-concept prototype working and available for examination by interested parties), I think you can see where a reasonable person would have cause to believe your post may have had some other purpose. As to your claim to have initially posted here looking for “...aid in developing...” your invention, I must, also, assume you are being sincere. But, there is nothing in your initial posting to this mailing list that supports this assumption in any way, shape or form. There is no mention of having acquired any funding, no mention of a job opening, nor is there mention of any intent on your part to seek a development partner (individual or company). That being said, I would be happy to look over your patent in detail and to give you my written, expert opinion on (a) whether it can actually be defended against challenges to its claim(s) and (b) whether it is possible, using current hardware and software tools, to actually construct a working prototype from the patent description. I have just two requirements: (1) You must agree to allow me to publish my analysis, unmodified, on the Internet (I will gladly also post, in the same location, any comments you may have regarding my analysis) and, (b) you must agree to assist in this analysis by providing any additional information I may need to complete the task. We can communicate for this purpose via email (this will also provide a “log” of our collaboration). I assure you I am completely sincere in making this offer. I have charged clients up to $250 per hour for similar services. Since I feel truly remorseful about incorrectly intimating you were a patent troll, you get this one on me. ;-) Let me know if you're interested. I have everything I need to get started right away. Cheers, Brad --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
2008/7/21 John LaMuth [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Announcing the recently issued U.S. patent concerning ethical artificial intelligence titled: Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer Simulating AI. This just show what a farce the US patent system has become. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Perhaps like Bob, I'm not sure whether this isn't a leg-pull. But, to take it seriously, how do you propose to give your robot free will - especially considering that the vast majority of AI/AGI-ers roboticists are still committed to an algorithmic paradigm which both excludes free will and denies its possibility? John LaMuth: Announcing the recently issued U.S. patent concerning ethical artificial intelligence titled: Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer Simulating AI. This innovative patent (# 6,587,846) introduces the newly proposed concept of the Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics: a system that radically expands upon previous ethical-robotic systems. As implied in its title, this patent represents the first AI system incorporating ethical/motivational terms: enabling a computer to reason and speak ethically, serving in roles specifying sound human judgement. These Ten Ethical Laws directly expand upon Isaac Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics, an earlier Science Fiction construct (from I, Robot) that aimed to rein in the potential conduct of the futuristic AI robot.. Indeed, Asimov's first two laws state that (1) a robot must not harm a human (or through inaction allow a human to come to harm), and (2) a robot must obey human orders (unless conflicting with rule #1). Although this cursory system of safeguards proves intriguing in a Sci-Fi sense, it nevertheless remains simplistic in its dictates, leaving open the specific details for implementing such a system. The newly patented Ten Ethical Laws fortunately remedy such a shortcoming, representing a general overview of the enduring conflict pitting virtue against vice: the virtues of which are partially listed below: Glory/Prudence Honor/Justice Providence/Faith Liberty/Hope Grace/Beauty Free-will/Truth Tranquility/Ecstasy Equality/Bliss Dignity/Temperance Integrity/Fortitude Civility/Charity Austerity/Decency Magnanim./Goodness Equanimity/Wisdom Love/Joy Peace/Harmony The Ten Ethical Laws are written in a positive style of formal mandate, focusing on the virtues to the necessary exclusion of the corresponding vices, as formally listed at: www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/ethical-laws.html The purely virtuous mode (by definition) is fully cognizant of the contrasting realm of the vices, without necessarily responding in kind. Furthermore, the corre-sponding hierarchy of the vices listed below contrasts point-for-point with the respective virtuous mode (the overall patent is actually composed of 320 individual terms). Infamy/Insurgency Dishonor/Vengeance Prodigal/Betrayal Slavery/Despair Wrath/UglinessTyranny/Hypocrisy Anger/Abomination Prejudice/Perdition Foolishness/Gluttony Caprice/Cowardice Vulgarity/Avarice Cruelty/Antagonism Oppression/Evil Persecution/Cunning Hatred/Iniquity Belligerence/Turpitude With such ethical safeguards firmly in place, the AI computer is formally prohibited from expressing the corresponding vices, allowing for a truly flawless simulation of virtue. Indeed, these Ten Ethical Robotic Laws hold the potential for parallel applications to a human sphere of influence.. Although only a cursory outline of applications is possible at this juncture, a more detailed treatment is posted at: www.ethicalvalues.com John E. LaMuth - M. S. fax: 586-314-5960 P.O. Box 105 Lucerne Valley, CA 92356 www.emotionchip.net http://www.ethicalvalues.com The Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics (A brief excerpt from the patent specification) A further pressing issue necessarily remains; namely, in addition to the virtues and values, the vices are similarly represented in the matching procedure (for completeness sake). These vices are appropriate in a diagnostic sense, but are maladaptive should they ever be acted upon. Response restrictions are necessarily incorporated into both the hardware and programming, along the lines of Isaac Asimov's Laws of Robotics. Asimov's first two laws state that (1) a robot must not harm a human (or through inaction allow a human to come to harm), and (2) a robot must obey human orders (unless they conflict with rule #1). Fortunately, through the aid of the power pyramid definitions, a more systematic set of ethical guidelines is constructed; as represented in the Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics ( I ) As personal authority, I will express my individualism within the guidelines of the four basic ego states (guilt, worry, nostalgia, and desire) to the exclusion of the corresponding vices (laziness, negligence, apathy, and indifference). ( II ) As personal follower, I will behave pragmatically in accordance with the alter ego states (hero worship, blame, approval, and concern) at the expense of the corresponding vices (treachery, vindictiveness,
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote: This is a real patent, unfortunately... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN%2F6587846 But I think it will expire before anyone has the technology to implement it. :-) I prefer Warren Ellis's angry, profane Three Laws of Robotics. (linked from BoingBoing) http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5426 BillK --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
2008/7/21 Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is a real patent, unfortunately... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.htmlr=1f=Gl=50d=PALLRefSrch=yesQuery=PN%2F6587846 But I think it will expire before anyone has the technology to implement it. :-) The idea that you can patent an invention which doesn't exist seems like an abuse of the system to me, but the US patent office is well known as perhaps the most permissive in the world. I think the attitude they take is that you can pretty much patent anything, and then whether the patent stands up or not just depends upon subsequent legal squabbling. Certainly this patent contains very high level ill-defined concepts, long pondered by philosophers and esposed by poets. What is grace, free will, or evil? Intuitively, most people believe that they know what these concepts mean, but when you drill down it all begins to get far murkier. Whether there will be robots furnished with such cognitive glitterati within the next 30 years remains to be seen. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
BillK: I prefer Warren Ellis's angry, profane Three Laws of Robotics. (linked from BoingBoing) http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5426 Actually, while I take Ellis' point as in 1...what are you thinking? Ooh, I must protect the bag of meat at all costs because I couldn't possibly plug in the charger all on my own. Shut the up... the issue of how an agent, robotic or living, is to secure its energy supply, is a huge, complicated and primary one both for an individual and a society - and does seem to be ignored in most theorising about AGI's and implementations. Think of this little spot of bother called Iraq. --- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Re: [agi] US PATENT ISSUED for the TEN ETHICAL LAWS OF ROBOTICS
Seems like this is getting to be a regualr event on the AGI, or other singularity-related lists: about once a year or so some crackpot announces that they have filed a patent for a complete thinking machine, or a robot-ethics system or some other garbage. The other crackpot announcement we get on a kind of annual basis is a press conference to show the world the first complete, fully functional human level AGI system. Haven't seen any of the latter recently, so we are probably due for one pretty soon now. Richard Loosemore John LaMuth wrote: Announcing the recently issued U.S. patent concerning ethical artificial intelligence titled: Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer Simulating AI. This innovative patent (# 6,587,846) introduces the newly proposed concept of the Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics: a system that radically expands upon previous ethical-robotic systems. As implied in its title, this patent represents the first AI system incorporating ethical/motivational terms: enabling a computer to reason and speak ethically, serving in roles specifying sound human judgement. These Ten Ethical Laws directly expand upon Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, an earlier Science Fiction construct (from I, Robot) that aimed to rein in the potential conduct of the futuristic AI robot.. Indeed, Asimov’s first two laws state that (1) a robot must not harm a human (or through inaction allow a human to come to harm), and (2) a robot must obey human orders (unless conflicting with rule #1). Although this cursory system of safeguards proves intriguing in a Sci-Fi sense, it nevertheless remains simplistic in its dictates, leaving open the specific details for implementing such a system. The newly patented Ten Ethical Laws fortunately remedy such a shortcoming, representing a general overview of the enduring conflict pitting virtue against vice: the virtues of which are partially listed below: Glory/Prudence Honor/Justice Providence/Faith Liberty/Hope Grace/Beauty Free-will/Truth Tranquility/Ecstasy Equality/Bliss Dignity/Temperance Integrity/Fortitude Civility/Charity Austerity/Decency Magnanim./Goodness Equanimity/Wisdom Love/Joy Peace/Harmony The Ten Ethical Laws are written in a positive style of formal mandate, focusing on the virtues to the necessary exclusion of the corresponding vices, as formally listed at: www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/ethical-laws.html http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/ethical-laws.html The purely virtuous mode (by definition) is fully cognizant of the contrasting realm of the vices, without necessarily responding in kind. Furthermore, the corre-sponding hierarchy of the vices listed below contrasts point-for-point with the respective virtuous mode (the overall patent is actually composed of 320 individual terms). Infamy/Insurgency Dishonor/Vengeance Prodigal/Betrayal Slavery/Despair Wrath/UglinessTyranny/Hypocrisy Anger/Abomination Prejudice/Perdition Foolishness/Gluttony Caprice/Cowardice Vulgarity/Avarice Cruelty/Antagonism Oppression/Evil Persecution/Cunning Hatred/Iniquity Belligerence/Turpitude With such ethical safeguards firmly in place, the AI computer is formally prohibited from expressing the corresponding vices, allowing for a truly flawless simulation of virtue. Indeed, these Ten Ethical Robotic Laws hold the potential for parallel applications to a human sphere of influence.. Although only a cursory outline of applications is possible at this juncture, a more detailed treatment is posted at: www.ethicalvalues.com http://www.ethicalvalues.com John E. LaMuth - M. S. fax: 586-314-5960 P.O. Box 105 Lucerne Valley, CA 92356 www.emotionchip.net http://www.emotionchip.net http://www.ethicalvalues.com The Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics (A brief excerpt from the patent specification) A further pressing issue necessarily remains; namely, in addition to the virtues and values, the vices are similarly represented in the matching procedure (for completeness sake). These vices are appropriate in a diagnostic sense, but are maladaptive should they ever be acted upon. Response restrictions are necessarily incorporated into both the hardware and programming, along the lines of Isaac Asimov’s Laws of Robotics. Asimov’s first two laws state that (1) a robot must not harm a human (or through inaction allow a human to come to harm), and (2) a robot must obey human orders (unless they conflict with rule #1). Fortunately, through the aid of the power pyramid definitions, a more systematic set of ethical guidelines is constructed; as represented in the Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics ( I ) As personal authority, I will express my individualism within the guidelines of the four basic ego states (guilt, worry, nostalgia, and desire) to the exclusion of
