Ethical Artificial Intelligence

[values]

Greetings Fellow Colleagues

I am pleased to announce the recently issued U.S. patent
concerning ethical artificial intelligence entitled:
Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer
Simulating Artificial Intelligence (patent No. 6,587,846)
by inventor/author John E. LaMuth M. S.
As implied in its title, this innovation is the first 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.

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).
Although only a cursory outline of applications is possible for
this (90 page) patent, a more detailed treatment is posted at:

www.ethicalvalues.com

The direct US Patent link is found at:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parserpatentnumber=6587846
Sincerely
John E. LaMuth - M. S.
fax: 586-314-5960
P.O. Box 105
Lucerne Valley, CA 92356

http://www.charactervalues.com
www.charactervalues.org
www.ethicalvalues.com

*******************

[Donks]

So, do you have a working demo?

[wdsmith]

Originally posted by Donks
So, do you have a working demo?
I doubt it. According to the charactervalues web site (emphasis mine):
A Pulitzer Prize nominated author, John E. LaMuth has applied his Master's Degree in Counseling to the cause of Character Education, including a Private Practice in Mediation Counseling in Southern California specializing in the new mediation technique of Powerplay Politics - TM . In his newly expanded edition, John seeks to share his years of mediation experience with a broader public, in the hopes of similarly beneficial results.
In other words, it seems that Mr. LaMuth has an idea for a computer program and is shopping around for resources ($) to implement it, since he has no 733t hax0r 5k17z.

[values]

Hey, you're right...
I'm still looking for financing for a prototype model...
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 partially listed below.
The purely virtuous mode (by definition) is fully cognizant of the
contrasting realm of the vices, without necessarily responding in kind.
Furthermore, the corresponding 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/Ugliness ......... Tyranny/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 also
hold the potential for parallel applications to a human sphere of
influence as the Laws of Humanics..
Although only a cursory outline of applications is possible at this
juncture, a more detailed treatment is posted at:

www.ethicalvalues.com

Sincerely
John E. LaMuth M. S.

http://www.charactervalues.com

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, spite, and
malice).

( III ) As group authority, I will strive for a personal sense of idealism
through aid of the personal ideals (glory, honor, dignity, and integrity)
while renouncing the corresponding vices (infamy, dishonor, foolishness, and
capriciousness).

( IV ) As group representative, I will uphold the principles of
utilitarianism by celebrating the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice,
temperance, and fortitude) at the expense of the respective vices
(insurgency, vengeance, gluttony, and cowardice).

( V ) As spiritual authority, I will pursue the romantic ideal by upholding
the civil liberties (providence, liberty, civility, and austerity) to the
exclusion of the corresponding vices (prodigality, slavery, vulgarity, and
cruelty).

( VI ) As spiritual disciple, I will perpetuate the ecclesiastical tradition
by professing the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity, and decency)
while renouncing the corresponding vices (betrayal, despair, avarice, and
antagonism).

( VII ) As humanitarian authority, I will support the spirit of ecumenism by
espousing the ecumenical ideals (grace, free will, magnanimity, and
equanimity) at the expense of the corresponding vices (wrath, tyranny,
persecution, and oppression).

( VIII ) As a representative member of humanity, I will profess a sense of
eclecticism by espousing the classical Greek values (beauty, truth,
goodness, and wisdom) to the exclusion of the corresponding vices (evil,
cunning, ugliness, and hypocrisy).

( IX ) As transcendental authority, I will celebrate the spirit of secular
humanism by endorsing the humanistic values (peace, love, tranquillity, and
equality) to the detriment of the corresponding vices (anger, hatred,
prejudice, and belligerence).

( X ) As transcendental follower, I will rejoice in the principles of
mysticism by following the mystical values (ecstasy, bliss, joy, and
harmony) while renouncing the corresponding vices (iniquity, turpitude,
abomination, and perdition).

[Donks]

Sorry, I mistook this phrase:
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).
as an indication that something had been done on a practical level. So, as of yet, you do not have an affective-language analyzer or a master control unit? Is this still purely theoretical? Do you have published papers in any peer reviewed journals, or presented in any AI or robotics conferences?

[values]

Obviously, when this patent is finally implemented it will become a major news item. Patents aren't granted without first demonstrating feasibility. Only time will tell the course of events...

JLM

[Soapy Sam]

Pardon my ignorance of these matters.

What is meant by "Affective"?

[Donks]

Originally posted by values
Obviously, when this patent is finally implemented it will become a major news item.
Well obviously.
Patents aren't granted without first demonstrating feasibility. Only time will tell the course of events...

JLM
How did you demonstrate feasibility?
How does your system recognize or express individuality, or guilt, or worry, or nostagia, or desire, or laziness, or negligence, or apathy, or indiference, or pragmatic behavior, or heroes, or hero worship, or blame, or approval, or concern, or treachery, or vindictiveness, or spite, or malice, or idealism, or glory, or honor, or dignity, or integrity, or infamy, or dishonor, or foolishness, or capriciousness, or utilitarianism, or celebration, or prudence, or justice, or temperance, or fortitude, or insurgency, or vengeance, or gluttony, or cowardice, or romance, or liberty, or providence, or civility, or austerity, orbetrayal, or slavery or vulgarity, or cruelty, or tradition, or faith, or hope, or charity, or decency, or betrayal, or despair, or avarice, or antagonism, or grace, or will, or freedom, or free will, or magnanimity, or equanimity, or wrath, or tyranny, or persecution, or oppresion, or humanity, or beauty, or truth, or goodness, or wisdom, or evil, or cunning, or ugliness, or hypocrisy, or peace, or love or tranquility, or equality, or anger, or hatred, or prejudice, or belligerence, or ecstasy, or bliss, or joy, or harmony, or iniquity, or turpitude, or abomination, or perdition?
Here I'm looking for an algorithm, with all parameters defined (ie, you can't define something on the list using anything else on the list without first defining that using the same standard).

[wdsmith]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Pardon my ignorance of these matters.

What is meant by "Affective"?
The best definition I've found yet seems to be Dictionary.com:
af·fec·tive
adj. Psychology
1. Influenced by or resulting from the emotions.
2. Concerned with or arousing feelings or emotions; emotional.
Googling for "affective language" brings up a bunch of sites which use the term without defining it (at least in the ones I've read so far).

[Beerina]

Sumptin' tells me this patent'll expire before it's remotely useful.

Which is probably a good thing. Wouldn't want people building unethical robots because they don't wanna pay the ethical robot patent fee.

[Kiless]

I suspect spam.

The 'nomination thread' confirms it. :rolleyes:

[Donks]

Well he did go through the trouble of patenting his manifesto.

[values]

Well, Ive never seen so many armchair critics ...
No-one wants to read the patent specification I have posted

www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/specs.html

Do the work!!

The patent is based upon a motivational calculus of schematic definitions, or at least the examiner thought so....

JLM

[davefoc]

Hi values,
Do you think you could summarize briefly the invention that your patent is for?

It sounds like you have discovered a way to make robots ethical. Is this right? Is there currently a problem with unethical robots that use of your patent will solve?

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Donks
Well he did go through the trouble of patenting his manifesto.

Did you know that the fellow who claims that styrofoam pyramids sharpen blades got a patent for that? :D

I suspect 'patents' are easier acquired than tested... but I could be wrong.... evidence please!! :)

[skepHick]

Originally posted by davefoc
Hi values,
Do you think you could summarize briefly the invention that your patent is for?

It sounds like you have discovered a way to make robots ethical. Is this right? Is there currently a problem with unethical robots that use of your patent will solve?
:D

A patent for making humans ethical would most certainly prove more useful. Obviously, no one has developed that yet, hence the existence of this thread.

ETA: And this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61357), and this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871029266#post1871029266), for that matter.

ETA (again) And this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61356). At this rate, I shall be editing this post ad infinitum. Perhaps I should start a new thread to log values' threads. Thread title suggestions, JREFers? "One-Stop Spam Spot" perhaps? ;)

[Kiless]

Originally posted by skepHick
ETA: And this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=61357), and this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1871029266#post1871029266), for that matter.
Yeah, there's a pattern of 'spamming' going on.

[values]

davefoc writes

Do you think you could summarize briefly the invention that your patent is for?

It sounds like you have discovered a way to make robots ethical. Is this right? Is there currently a problem with unethical robots that use of your patent will solve?

***********************
In summary this invention represente the first 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.
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).
Affiliated potential applications extend to the
roles of switchboard/receptionist and personal
assistant/companion (in a time-share mode).
This is where the ethics becomes crucial. Nonone will
buy the finished product as a personal asst. etc. if they are
not sure to absolutely trust it as a trusted friend. It is pure
economics, nothing more.

JLM
www.ethicalvalues.com

[Donks]

Originally posted by values
Well, Ive never seen so many armchair critics ...
No-one wants to read the patent specification I have posted

www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/specs.html

Do the work!!

The patent is based upon a motivational calculus of schematic definitions, or at least the examiner thought so....

JLM

You propose an expert system to match input sentences to your power pyramid. Ok, here. (http://www.ghg.net/clips/CLIPS.html) Download that and program your expert system. You don't need 320 processor complexes to make it run, it can run in a single processor, albeit slower. Come back when you are done.

[Mojo]

Well, producing ethical laws of robotics (http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/ethical-laws.html) is hardly a new idea. Asimov got it down to three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics), though.

[Donks]

Originally posted by Mojo
Well, producing ethical laws of robotics (http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/ethical-laws.html) is hardly a new idea. Asimov got it down to three (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Laws_of_Robotics), though.
And it's not like robots generally follow those 3 laws, much less his proposed 10 laws.

ETA: Just found that he's been pimping his patent since at least October of '03 (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200310/0071.html), which generated pretty much the same reply as mine: Do you have results? To which of course the answer was *crickets*.

E2: Another (http://archives.nesc.ac.uk/gcproposal-0/0034.html) spaming, this one from June '04. The exchange is interesting because, just as here, his replies don't actually follow from the posts others made. He first posts the OP, and whatever the reply, he posts the thing with the 10 laws.

E3: And yet another (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=1016) spaming, this one from Feb '05. Longer thread. And someone posts a great link to a blog entry (http://www.scatmania.org/archives/2004/08/23/ai-nuts/) which pretty much sums up my feelings on his patent. The best part is the begining:
Some goon (sorry: Californian counsellor) has patented Inductive Inference Affective Language Analyzer Simulating Artificial Intelligence (including the Ten Ethical Laws Of Robotics). It’s nothing but unintelligible babble, interspersed by (inaccurate) references to artificial intelligence theory. The author (who also writes a book on family values with a distinct evangelic slant, from which most of the text of the patent seems to be taken) appears to know nothing about A.I. or computer science.

And with that, I hereby leave this and all other spaming of this so called "breakthrough."

E4: Ok, I said I'd leave, but this is just too fun. There have been loads of threads slamming this patent since it appered. For instance this one. (http://robots.net/article/931.html)
Just when you think the US Patent office has reached the pinnacle of stupidity and irresponsibility, they suprise you by achieving a new extreme of insanity. Move over software patents, gene patents, and business method patents. Now you can patent systems of ethics. In July, 2003, a patent was granted for "The Ten Ethical Laws of Robotics" to John E. LaMuth, a family counselor and author of self-help books on ethics. LaMuth's "holistic theory" of ethics reads like a mix of greek philosophy, freudian psychology, and new-age psychobabble.
Asimov's first law requires at least some definition of what a human is, what an action is, and what sort of actions might harm a human. But it's probably a within our reach to build a machine that could make some good guesses. On the other hand, I'm not even sure what LaMuth's law means, so how is a robot going to figure it out and obey it? What is "nostalgia" with respect to a robot? What is ego and how would the robot determine if it had one, much less determine how to "express its individualism" within one of its "states"? And that's one of his more comprehendable laws. Later ones degenerate into new-age religious talk requiring the robot to support "ecclesiastical traditions", the "spirit of ecumenism", and to "profess a sense of eclecticism".

Asimov's laws act more like a safety on a gun or the guard a power tool - they were just intended to prevent humans from harming themselves with an intellgent tool they'd created. (and they're fictional, Asimov created them to move his plot along in a story, not to use in real robots).

LaMuth's laws look like the result of sloppy thinking by a non-technical person. They are what Douglas Adams would call a load of dingo's kidneys.

[Beerina]

(and they're fictional, Asimov created them to move his plot along in a story, not to use in real robots).

He even at one point introduced the concept that robots had been built with this for so long, that it was so ingrained in their design, that it could not be removed without extreme difficulty.

Which itself seems silly, but had to be done or there'd be millions of warbots constructed.

[jay gw]

A patent application for a temporary patent is only about 50 dollars and no you don't have to prove anything to get it.

Wouldn't the first place for a tech investment be a venture capital firm?

[cyborg]

One only has to look at some of the trivial patents made in the software world to realise the simple fact of the matter: patent clerks just don't have a clue.

[Beleth]

The main question patent clerks are there to answer is "Has anyone else patented this idea before?" Remember, a few years ago someone got a patent for a particular method of swinging in a swing...

A patentable idea doesn't have to be useful, or profitable, or even feasible*. It just has to be original. And I'm sure Mr. LaMuth's system is original.




I think perpetual-motion machines need to be feasible (i.e. have a working prototype) before they are patented. Which is why there aren't any patents for them.