> Assuming I'm a Troll is pretty harsh, isnt it ? > > I just wished to pitch my invention to SI in hopes of > aid in developing this ... Along the lines of "friendly" AI. > This innovation is the 1st affect- > ive language analyzer incorporating ethical/motivational > terms, serving in the role of interactive computer > interface. It enables a computer to reason and speak in an > ethical fashion, serving in roles specifying sound human > judgement: such as public relations or security functions. > This innovation is formally based on a multi-level > hierarchy of the traditional groupings of virtues, values, > and ideals, collectively arranged as subsets within a > hierarchy of metaperspectives - as partially depicted below.
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. Mike Archbold > > 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 systematic organization underlying this ethical > hierarchy allows for extreme efficiency in programming, > eliminating much of the associated redundancy, providing > a precise determination of motivational parameters at > issue during a given verbal interchange. > This AI platform is organized as a tandem-nested expert > system, composed of a primary affective-language analyzer > overseen by a master control-unit (that coordinates the > verbal interactions over real time). Through an elaborate > matching procedure, the precise motivational parameters > are accurately determined (defined as the passive-monitoring > mode). This basic determination, in turn, serves as the > basis for a response repertoire tailored to the computer > (the true AI simulation mode). This innovation is completely > novel in its ability to simulate emotionally charged language: > an achievement that has previously eluded AI researchers due > to the lack of an adequate model of motivation in general. > As such, it represents a **pure language simulation,** effectively > bypassing many of the limitations plaguing current robotic > research. Affiliated 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: <[email protected]> > 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. >> Sheesh! >> >> Cheers, >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> Matt Mahoney wrote: >>> This is a real patent, unfortunately... >>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F6587846 >>> >>> But I think it will expire before anyone has the technology to >>> implement >>> it. :-) >>> >>> -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> 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/?&; >> 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/?&; > 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=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
