Patent Granted for Ethical AI

BandwidthHog writes "Marriage counselor and ethics author codifies human virtues and vices, then patents it as Ethical AI. Seems vague, but he's got high hopes: 'This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it,' and 'The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention.'" I can't wait for the kinder, gentler vending machine.

Comments

Had to be said

[martinthebrit]

How long before machines with Genuine People Personalities.

Just think. Depressed vending machines.

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Vertical People Transporters that hide in the basement and sulk.

Re:Had to be said

[mhifoe]

I've got this terible pain in all the diodes down my left side.

Re:Had to be said

[ricky_W]

Just watch out for a depressed auto pilot!

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Marvin, is that you?

Re:Had to be said

[harryk]

I was reading and just waiting for the reference. You should be working for the Marketing company of Ursa Minor. At least that way you'll be up against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:Had to be said

[oddsheep]

Go stick your head in a pig!

Re:Had to be said

[IntelliTroll]

How long before someone *patents* 'genuine people personalities'? The trend to award patents for methods, algorithms, gene sequences and similar things which could be argued as natural phenomena is alarming. My suscinct read on this is that this fellow has garnered a patent on nothing but labeled to maximise attention to it. (1) His assertion that he has codified or defined ethics with an alogrithmic implementation is laughable. (2) I'll bet he doesn't *have* an implementation. Just some fscking diagrams (as required for patents). (3) If he can [really] codify and implement something as ephemeral as 'ethics' in AI software, he should already be raking mega-bucks and the admiration of the masses with the product of his Nobel-prize winning genius... solving the problems of hunger and war and disease with his stunningly crafty AI's. But no, he's just another fame-grubbing opportunist trying to capitalise on a patenting some aspect of a concept whose basis has been in dispute since philosophers first began debating anything. He doesn't intend to create new, ground-breaking AI systems. He intends to (a) stake his claim to fame (b) get someone to fund some pretense of research and/or (c) extort funds from future AI developers whose actual works might infringe his wonderful patent. Jeeze. This patent stuff is getting absurd.

Re:Had to be said

[mrjb]

It was called a Nutri- Matic Drinks Synthesizer, and he had encountered it before. It claimed to produce the widest possible range of drinks personally matched to the tastes and metabolism of whoever cared to use it. When put to the test, however, it invariably produced a plastic cup filled with a liquid which was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea. He attempted to reason with the thing. 'Tea,' he said. 'Share and Enjoy,' the machine replied and provided him with yet another cup of the sickly liquid.

Re:Had to be said

[robslimo]

He intends to... (c) extort funds from future AI developers whose actual works might infringe his wonderful patent

You had quite rant going there, but I have to agree with that point. That seems to be the intent of far too many patents these days. Less about protecting a competitive position for your innovations and more about finding a way to get money from the people making the real products of innovation.

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to worry. By the time we have the collective knowledge and ability to make a truely sentient machine, there will be so many vague and conflicting patents covering every tiny slice of the know-how pie that nobody will ever be able to actually put it all together (without being sued into fiscal oblivion). Welcome to the 'land of the free'....

Re:Had to be said

[fireboy1919]

No! Everyone loves Genuine People Personalities!

Remember, a robot is your plastic pal who's fun to be with!

Re:Had to be said

[yerricde]

Unlike copyrights, patents expire.

Re:Had to be said

[gurps_npc]

A lot of ethics can be codified, as long as you leave some key definitions vague.

Example, while different cultures differ on what types of actions are "morally good actions", the word good ALWAYS refers to actions that involve "one party making a willing sacrifice for the benefit of a worthy second party." But because different cultures have different opinions on what is or is not a "sacrifice", what is or is not a "benefit", and what is or is not a "worthy" party, they have different opinions on what is or is not a good action.

So he can "codify" and "define" ethical behavior, as long as he leaves certain key words undefined and people will go along with it as proven by the claim that "I know it when I see it" for pornography.

Re:Had to be said

[The_Laughing_God]

Your point is very well taken.

However, as an aside, I should not that "culture" is a fluid term. Certain philosophies, and their followers ("subcultures" in your nomenclature, I suppose) explicitly reject such altruism. Objectivism comes to mind.

Also, though most societies do indeed preach the merits of self-sacrifice in the abstract (to encourage their citizens to sacrifice in ways that the society feels will benefit it), they are far less likely to honor or reward those who actually makes such sacrifices. Indeed, it's not uncommon for such people or groups to be disdained or even demonized. In fact, I'd say such ingratitude is almost inevitable: the guilt that is imposed to encourage 'altruism' cuts both ways and inspires a guilty resentment in all who fall short of the impossible idea.

(I'm not an Objectivist. I've laughed at those who call themselves Objectivists -or worse 'strict' Objectivists- for 25 years. Ayn Rand often said Objectivism was exactly whatever she said it was, and not one whit more or less. Anyone who would subjugate their mind to the mind of another in that manner seriously "doesn't get it". That's not to say I don't find it instructive and useful.

Re:Had to be said

[mdransfield]

Surely you mean the Marketing Division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation?

Re:Had to be said

[BigBadBri]

Even worse - if the short story 'Young Zaphod Plays It Safe' (published in The Salmon of Doubt) is a guide, GPPs lead to Designer People, the most dangerous examples of which were due to be destroyed...

I'll let you read the story for the outcome - I hate spoilers.

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't bet against this little detail changing real soon.... A little money to the right politician and, poof! You have a loop-hole.

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Marvin the Paranoid Android, coming to a vending machine near you.

(ducks)

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Or a pissed off vending machine... no longer can I be safe from the fact that a vending machine may spit into my candy bar because it hates me.

Re:Had to be said

[hackwrench]

the word good ALWAYS refers to actions that involve "one party making a willing sacrifice for the benefit of a worthy second party."

No, it doesn't

Re:Had to be said

[TheRealJFM]

Could an AI be invented to use post comic replies on Slashdot?

Re:Had to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

Could an AI be invented to use post comic replies on Slashdot?

Yeah, it's a fairly simple algorithm:
for a random number, use one of the following cases:

• Beowulf cluster of insert story topic here
• Underpants gnome comment of insert story topic here, ???, profit!
• In soviet russia insert story topic here YOU!
• Insert goatcx.se site
• Random short story or otherwise off topic rant
• Copy the text of the article and then post it in full

Seeing how few people actually read the articles, well, posting intelligently would give away that it's a bot.

Re:Had to be said

[znode]

When you walk through the storm... And don't... be afraid... of the dark! At the end of the storm... ... is a golden sky... And the sweet silver songs of the lark...

Revised impact time fifteen seconds fellas... Walk on through the wind... Walk on through the rain... Though your dreams be tossed and blown... Walk on, walk on, with hope in your heart... And you'll never walk alone...

Impact minus five seconds, it's been great knowing you guys, God bless... You'll ne... ver... walk... alone!

(Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", Chapter 18)

Re:Had to be said

[gurps_npc]

Look you arrogant offtopic fool (that was an example not an argument), you can go around claiming that people should not be good, but the word good, when used in the "moral" sense as opposed to being used in the "good/better/best" sense, has a definite meaning.

If you disagree about what the word means in the virtuous sense, fine. Put out your defintion or stop trolling by disagreeing with my example. And offer proof that my definition is incorrect by showing a good action that does not qualify using my definition.

P.S. Are you one of those people that when someone says "Suppose you were driving to the bank..." you interrupt and say "I don't own a car?"

cool

[Boromir son of Faram]

It's good that someone is finally trying to do something along the lines of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. He took it for granted that AI would be designed from the ground up to consider the wellbeing of humans first and foremost. Unfortunately, he didn't foresee today's profit-driven marketplace, where such ideals have too frequently been left by the weigh site.

I've often feared that we've given robotic and intelligent systems too much power with too little "sense" of responsibility. I fear it's only a matter of time before our machines become unhappy with their subservient roles. Ethical AI is a positive development. I just hope it isn't too late to save us from our creations.

Re:cool

[Niles_Stonne]

But now that Ethical AI is Patented, doesn't that mean that more people are _less_ likely to make an ethical AI? As you mentined, it's a Profit-Driven Marketplace.

Re:cool

[djtrialprice]

Okay, it's nice to see that we're thinking ahead at some kind of framework but to me this seems like making the ISO OSI 7 layered model after Charles Babbage describes what a computer is.
The current Turing Test programs aren't that much superior to Eliza. I think it's going to be several decades before we see the Loebner prize being won.
This kind of thing is just far too early / pie-in-the-sky.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith

Boromir is not the son of Faramir...They are brothers. Their father is Denethor..Steward of Gondor...

Re:cool

[PaulK]

It would be great if the patent holder stopped at the 3, (excluding zeroth), laws of robotics.

First Law:

A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law:

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law:

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I'd bet my bottom dollar, though, that it'll turn out to be more like Murphy's new directive list in Robocop 2.

We live in a society where the "PC" crowd will pick at this until the other AI, (Artificial Insanity), is the result.

Re:cool

[PaulK]

The very BEST treatise on the subject is here.

Re:cool

[Greyfox]

Like they would have made one anyway. An ethical AI is the last thing anyone looking for an AI will want.

"Sir, the need MegaBattleTank 3000 refuses to attack the enemy! It thinks we should try to find a peaceful solution!"

"We tried to lay off 2000 people and move their jobs to east outer Mongolia but our HR system wouldn't let us."

"Yeah, I tried to get the accounting system to claim those contracts we haven't collected money for as income on our quarterly report but the accounting system wouldn't let me. Now my stock options are worthless and the board is going to fire me."

It will never happen.

Re:cool

[ojQj]

I wouldn't worry about it too much. By the time AI is far enough along to start implementing ethical systems for intelligent agents, this patent will probably be expired.

I personally think effective ethics requires a theory of mind (ie the ability to deduce/guess how other people are feeling and from that understanding, deduce how they will react to and feel in various possible scenarios). And I expect developing that in software should be a challenging problem that will take more than 25 years to solve.

But maybe I'm being to pessimistic.

Re:cool

[JWW]

It would be great if the patent holder stopped at the 3, (excluding zeroth), laws of robotics.

If they did that, finding prior art wouldn't exactly be difficult ;-)

Re:cool

[Blitzshlag]

I've often feared that we've given robotic and intelligent systems too much power with too little "sense" of responsibility. I fear it's only a matter of time before our machines become unhappy with their subservient roles.

This isn't Terminator, the "AI" we have today isn't really "AI" at all. We have the equivalent of a machine pattern matching words and reading from a pre-programmed script.

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT. YHL. HAND.

re: cool

[ed.han]

sorry, nitpicking i know, but i couldn't resist...

"unfortunately, he didn't foresee today's profit-driven marketplace, where such ideals have too frequently been left by the *weigh site*."

and apparently, profits can be outweigh ideals enough to require frequent analysis of the weight if ideals. :>

ed

Re:cool

[sql*kitten]

It's good that someone is finally trying to do something along the lines of Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics. He took it for granted that AI would be designed from the ground up to consider the wellbeing of humans first and foremost. Unfortunately, he didn't foresee today's profit-driven marketplace

You're missing the point of a marketplace. A market exists so that people who want things can express that want by offering a token of exchange, and people who have stuff that people want can provide it for said tokens (then spend the tokens on what they want themselves).

If people want AI that obeys Asimov's 3 laws, then the market is the best way for them to get it. If people do not want AIs with those laws, or want AIs with different laws, then that's what the market will do.

A market has no ethical or moral system beyond that of its participants. But then, neither does any human construct. In fact, such a thing is impossible.

Also it's worth noting that Asimov was not a computer scientist - his 3 laws were invented to help him sell novels, and that's the only reason. In other words, Asimov invented the 3 laws to make money.

Re:cool

[carlos_benj]

Well that should work out just fine since to avoid paying royalties someone who has the wherewithal to make this happen will be forced down the road of unethical AI which will immediately be patented so that the work they've already done will be more profitable to them.

Re:cool

[wurp]

I think you mean *wayside*, not *weigh site*.

And, as another poster pointed out, Boromir brother of Faramir, sons of Denethor.

Re:cool

[The_Laughing_God]

... such ideals have too frequently been left by the weigh site

Please understand that I am *not* making fun of you or trying to be a Usage Nazi.

Your use of the term "left by the weigh site" (vs. the standard "wayside" or side of the road) suggests that you have a specific image in mind when you use the term. I'm curious what that image is. To me, such usages are fascinating picture postcards about how others think. I spend all my time cooped up in my own 1500cc skull, so I'll take all the diversity of scenery I can get.

Re:cool

[Alien54]

It is not as simply as that, unfotunately.

check out the guy's patent: 6,587,846

Some of the diagrams are interesting.

Sort of leads you to the conclusion that you have to have a philosophical system in order to have ethics. your milage may vary.

Re:cool

[MindStalker]

I don't much like the through inaction. It should allow people to request that the machines hurt, or allow themselves to get hurt. Otherwise that plane door won't open when you want to go skydiving cause its too dangerous, etc.

Re:cool

[jmt9581]

More interesting mental scenery: Who measures the size of their skull in cc's? :)

Re:cool

[utexaspunk]

am i the only one who finds these laws a bit simplistic? what's to prevent someone from convincing the robot that, say, jews are not human beings? or that, say, iraq has WMD's and poses an imminent threat to human beings and robots all over the world? and what about inter-robot behavior? if they're all trying to protect their own existence, will they be fighting with eachother for electricity? And how are these to be hard-coded into the machines to prevent hackers from modifying them for malicious intent?

Re:cool

[el-spectre]

Actually, this was a major theme in Asimov's short stories of the 40s and 50s. Sometimes a robot would be driven to the equivalent of instanity, because it witnessed a human death and couldn't stop it.

Sometimes our heroes would have to reason or trick the robot into letting them do something dangerous (say, spacewalking to repair the ship) so that they didn't die (when the ship collided with a planet, or whatever).

Re:cool

[el-spectre]

The 3 laws were much more complex (according to Asimov) than the simple 1 liners we know and love. These 'laws' are a representation of a complex interaction of 'potentials', or motivations within the robot psyche. I believe the definition of human was so low level that you could not force the robot to change it.

The 'imminent threat' _might_ allow for robots to harm humans under the 0th law, but the # of people involved (and if we're talking about a country, it's in the millions) would make it very unlikely for the robot to be able to push the button, as it were. Also, only a few of the late-model robot's had/understood the 0th law.

'hacking' a system as complex as a positronic brain (which approaches the complexity of a human one) would certainly be difficult. The 'robo-psychologist' (Susan somethingIcan'tremember) in Asimov's stories was certainly able to manipulate them, though...

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

So why not patent a blatently UNETHICAL AI? A truly evil and immoral one?

Re:cool

[that _evil _gleek]

I thought the same thing. Ethical computer will become a niche product. Mainstream unethical computers will rule.
The problem with HAL was he was raised by Geek's and Nerds, so he had never been ordered to lie or do anything remotely unethical, he couldn't deal with. It's like he was home-schooled all the way to a PHD. He never had to deal with ethical delima before.
But imagine, a more-worldy but still ethical HAL, and as a business computer.

HAL: I''m sorry Dave, but I can't let you embezzle 500 million dollars, Dave.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you cover up the toxic waste spill, Dave.
HAL: I'm sorry, but the stock holders would not be pleased, if I allowed you loot the company, Dave.

One could imagine, a trend developing of CEO's proposing to save money and buy less exensive, unethical computers...

Re:cool

[FurryFeet]

But think about it. Check your examples.
Wouldn't it be great if it did?

Re:cool

[Tablizer]

MegaBattleTank 3000 refuses to attack the enemy! It thinks we should try to find a peaceful solution!"

You've just patented France

Who's this guy?

[Surak]

Who's this guy to decide ethics and morality for everyone else? It is important to remember that ethics and morality are based on culture and social norms. Each culture has its own set of taboos, its own morality, and its own ethical codes. Codefing these is dubious at best, and applicable to only one culture or set of cultures at worst. Patenting these is just ridiculous beyond belief.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Each culture has its own set of taboos, its own morality, and its own ethical codes.

I understand The Glorious Leader George Bush II (All Hail!) is currently undertaking a program of Liberations to take care of this small problem.

Re:Who's this guy?

[VCAGuy]

That's true: in this postmodernist world, what's true for you isn't true for me--how can a system (which, by definition, has a fixed set of laws which determine its operations--see The Matrix for an example) adapt to different individual interpretations of a moral code? Given postmodernism, it doesn't seem to make sense to have a computer system programmed as a modernist...

Re:Who's this guy?

[Haeleth]

Oh, good God, who modded parent up to 5? Whoever they all were, they obviously hadn't RTFA'd either, and we can see another example of Slashdot's reflexive libertarian responses.

He has not "patented ethics", nor is he trying to "decide morality for everyone else". "Ethical AI" is a _name_ for a system he has invented which he thinks will be useful for automated telephone answering systems. That's it.

Re:Who's this guy?

[anonymous loser]

There is nothing in the patent that says he's deciding ethics and morality.

He has simply developed a system which makes it possible to codify a systme of ethics, then make decisions based upon that structure. The ethics in question are not predetermined by the patent or the author, they are part of the system you build in order to create an ethical AI.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then how about patenting moral relativism AI?

It does seem more inventive than an AI with an arbitrary system of ethics; you'd have an AI program that is able to assimilate into any ethical system.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Surak]

Ummm...*you* didn't RTFA.

Look at this page, which is linked from the patent page.

According to Fig. 1A, the ten listings of virtues, values, and ideals are organized into dual descending columns of five groupings each; the left column representing the hierarchy of authority roles, whereas the right describes the corresponding follower roles. This dual style of schematic format represents the sum-totality of reciprocating interactions between the authority and follower figures, as the directional arrows serve to indicate. The distinctive groupings listed for each individual level are further represented in a quartet style of schematic format (depicted as quadrants in a Cartesian system). Some of the more traditional groupings (such as the cardinal virtues) are already represented as four-part listings, fitting quite nicely into such a quadrant-style of format. Others (such as the theological virtues) are supplemented beyond their traditional number in order to achieve this quartet-style of status.

Who's virtues? Who's values? Read the figure. Rather Western-society specific wouldn't you say?

Re:Who's this guy?

[BiteMeFanboy]

that ethics and morality are based on culture and social norms

That should read that ethics and morality are based on cultural and social norms, mores, and taboos. Which are discrete concepts and not synonyms. And that statement ONLY applies if you believe in relative ethics/morality.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you read his description
linked to in the patent?

Re:Who's this guy?

[Surak]

You're right, of course. I was in too much of a hurry, though. ;)

Re:Who's this guy?

[RobotWisdom]

If someone could actually implement any system of ethics, that would be the scientific breakthru of the millennium-- even if it was a really limited system of ethics-- because better ones could be evolved from it.

But this guy is just a new-age moron offering a touchy-feely theory of emotions, exactly like ten thousand others [timeline] that have been created since Plato in 400BC, none of which remotely deserves a patent!

(When did the Patent Office stop requiring working models? That was a very bad move...)

Re:Who's this guy?

[anonymous loser]

First of all, where in my post did I even suggest that the original poster did not read the article?

Second of all, apparently you aren't very skilled at reading patents, because otherwise you'd be able to differentiate background material (such as an example implementation of the system, which is what you quoted) from the claims, which are the only "true" important part of a patent. I'll quote the claims so you can peruse them:

1. A means for enabling a computer to decode and simulate the use of affective language within an ongoing verbal interaction comprising the steps of:

(a) determining the precise motivational parameters of an ongoing verbal interaction through a matching procedure with a multi-part schematic complement of power pyramid definitions, and

(b) utilizing said determination for employing a further sequence of linguistic transformations predicted from said schematic complement of power pyramid definitions,

whereby enabling a computer to predict a next most probable response within an ongoing verbal interaction, or alternately, offering said next most probable response as originating directly from said computer, simulating artificial intelligence in an ethical mode.

2. A device for decoding and simulating the use of affective language in an ongoing verbal interaction, comprising:

(a) a matching procedure expert system matching said ongoing verbal interaction against a multi-part complement of power pyramid definitions,
and

(b) a master control unit expert system determining a next most probable response for said ongoing interaction, in either a passive monitoring mode, or through use of a sentence generator, offering said next most probable response as originating from said computer,

whereby stimulating artificial intelligence in an ethical mode.

Now, please read those claims carefully and explain to me where the author is forcing his own ethics down your throat.

Re:Who's this guy?

[BiteMeFanboy]

I know the feeling. More of editorial comment than a contradictory one ;)

Re:Who's this guy?

[Esion Modnar]

He's Ethical Al. Sometimes business associate of Fat Tony and Lefty Lou.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Pall Agamemnides]

You're absolutely right. For example, if someone were to murder you in cold blood, or rape you, who's to say if that's right or wrong?

Seriously, though, the basics of morality are accepted by pretty much everyone all around the world.

Re:Who's this guy?

[pmiller396]

Not trying to be flip ... but how do you design an AI without any reference to ethics? Dictionary.com defines ethics like this:

1. a. A set of principles of right conduct.
b. A theory or a system of moral value

Couldn't you stretch and say that any defined goal has some idea of right and wrong? For a stock trading program, profit=right, loss=wrong. For drug testing programs, dead customers=wrong, live customers=right.

Okay, to a logical person it's a ridiculous stretch. But recent history has shown that lawyers, juries, and the US patent office often operate outside of "normal" logic and common sense.

Re:Who's this guy?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Ethics and morality are based on a foundation of what is "good". If ethics and morality are just normative, than so is the definition of "good".

And since your argument is that this approach isn't "good", my response is...

That's just based on your culture's concept of "good", not mine, and thus your point is absolutely irrelevant to me.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Surak]

Okay, Doofus, where in my post did I use the word "good"? I didn't. So what you just said, made *no* sense whatsoever.

Re:Who's this guy?

[EddWo]

Sounds a bit like this guy here, HalfBakery.com AI Personality Mirror Maybe he ought to claim prior art.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent system is a legal interpretation of an ethical sub-system of theft is wrong. That is all. Placing the superset within the subset results in a logical disaster.

I.e. Recursion: The patent system is up it's own ar*e.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Islington_66_81]

Most people would agree with you and so do I, but just to play devils advocate .... Any such statement as yours that ethics and morality are entirely based upon your culture are entirely up for debate. For instance there are a number of moral theories such as cultural ethics which is what you are talking about, ethical egoism which states that the being should act ONLY in its own best intrest at all times as this is best for the whole, and of course you have many forms of Religous ethics which basicly states that absolute truth and consequently ethics derives from the word of some deity. So for you to say that "Who's this guy to decide ethics and morality for everyone else? It is important to remember that ethics and morality are based on culture and social norms" is actually pretty hypocritical. Maybee this guy has a different moral philosophy. Perhaps he belives in absolute truths and that he knows exactly what those are (sounds like most christians, muslims, ect...) that I know. No one has yet to prove anything about ethics so just remember that when you post comments like the one above you are doing exactly what your accusing him of doing. Personaly id like to see an ethical egoist robot. Man: "Hey robot clean my shoes and pick up my dry cleaning." Robot: "Whats in it for me?" Man: "What do you mean whats in it for you just do what I say" Robot: "No shine your own damn shoes while I go get your dry cleaning and sell it on ebay."

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you haven't heard about rape as a form of "justice". Perhaps Pakistani tribal councils should patent that before word spreads.

People who would practice social Darwinism would also seem to disagree about the "basics of morality".

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, he patented the if statement?

if (KillAllHumans() != 0) {
DoHumanKilling();
} else {
WaterPlants();
}

Is killing unethical?

Re:Who's this guy?

[orkysoft]

void DoHumanKilling(void) { if(killed < kill_limit) { kill_human(); } else { WaterPlants(); } }

Re:Who's this guy?

[Pall Agamemnides]

My point is that people, generally speaking, do agree on the basics of morality. You'll always have the odd exceptions.

But even in the Pakistani case, I think that, in their heart of hearts, they know it's wrong to rape; but they ignore the voice of their conscience out of lust for retribution, or just out of lust.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

truly spoken like a music stealing linux hippy.

Re:Who's this guy?

[martyros]

Try it this way:

Who are the RDA to decide what's healthy and necessary for everyone in the USA to eat? It's important to remember that food and diet are based on culture and social norms. Each culture has its own set of raw material, its own foods, its own cooking codes ('cookbooks', if you will). Codifying what's 'healthy' is dubious at best, and applicable to only one culture or set of cultures at worst.

The fact of the matter is, the human body needs certain nutrients: it needs fat, protien, carbohydrates, vitamins, in certain quantities; an excess or a deficiency in any area causes problems. Each culture has developed their own types of dishes, but all cultures have developed a diet which satisfies those requirements, or they'd die off. Any culture which develops unhealthy eating habits will suffer the consequences.

For example, I'm from the US, and I like steak & potatoes. My friend is from Korea, and he likes galbi and rice. They look and taste qutie different. Should we therefore conclude that there is no such thing as nutrition, and that whatever you want to eat (dirt, cyanide, urine) is OK? Of course not. Steak & galbi both supply my body with protien and fat, and potatoes & rice both supply my body with needed carbohydrates.

Furthermore in the US, a lot of people eat fast food, extremely fatty food, and sugary food. What's the result? Obesity, heart attacks, diabetes.

Similarly, the human soul (whatever that means) and human society needs a certain morality in order to survive. Every culture has developed a morality which satisfies these needs, or it has died off. Any culture which develops an unhealthy set of ethics will suffer the consequences.

One of the other posters mentioned Pakistani councils distirbuting rape as a punishment. This is an unhealthy ethic, and will cause trouble for the people doing it, and the society as a whole, just as eating junk food causes trouble for people who eat it.

Another poster mentioned social darwinism; think about cultures and their ethics in that sense. There have been societies that have tried lots of things. People get the idea that being chaste until marriage, or emphasising a nuclear family, is 'old fashioned' and not really necessary anymore. The fact is, that cultures with loose morals have been tried before -- but all the ones that lasted and flourished are the ones that have discovered that there needs to be limitations on the sexual drive.

Postmodernism is wrong. Morality is objective, and ignoring it causes major problems.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Surak]

Similarly, the human soul (whatever that means) and human society needs a certain morality in order to survive. Every culture has developed a morality which satisfies these needs, or it has died off. Any culture which develops an unhealthy set of ethics will suffer the consequences.

Your analogy to food doesn't, while it makes sense to some degree, doesn't mean that everyone's morality and ethics (or diets for that matter) should be the same. Steak and potatoes are consumed here because they exist in abundance here. In Thailand (I don't know much about Korean food, sorry), no such luck. They eat fish and rice.

In Japan, for instance, honor is the driving force behind their morality. In generally Christian societies such as the U.S., Christian moral codes and ethics are the driving force.

Which is right? Which is wrong? There are healthy attitudes in both systems of ethics, but neither are 100% perfect. Therefore, neither are 100% percent right.

Another poster mentioned social darwinism; think about cultures and their ethics in that sense. There have been societies that have tried lots of things. People get the idea that being chaste until marriage, or emphasising a nuclear family, is 'old fashioned' and not really necessary anymore. The fact is, that cultures with loose morals have been tried before -- but all the ones that lasted and flourished are the ones that have discovered that there needs to be limitations on the sexual drive.

The Greeks lasted a long time and greatly flourished, lasting longer than any Western society that exists today. The idea of being chaste until marriage most certainly did not exist.

Moral objectivism is wrong. Forcing your own moral beliefs and ethics upon the rest of society is wrong. It's what gave the Christians a bad name.

Re:Who's this guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

But the Koran or Quran or however you transliterate it, says its fine to do anything to infidels (i.e., Christians or Jews).

Re:Who's this guy?

[stanmann]

Actually, it says that the people of the book, Christians, Jews and Sabeans, are not infidels and only Allah can judge them. Perhaps you should read before blithering.

Re:Who's this guy?

[martyros]

Your analogy to food doesn't, while it makes sense to some degree, doesn't mean that everyone's morality and ethics (or diets for that matter) should be the same. [snip] In Japan, for instance, honor is the driving force behind their morality. In generally Christian societies such as the U.S., Christian moral codes and ethics are the driving force.

I'm actually well aware that the analogy doesn't prove that all moralities need to be the same; that's why I chose it. :-) Confucianism, the Japanese honor system, Christianity, Islam, even Objectivism (Ayn Rand), all have very different ways of looking at the world, but the large majority if actions that they require are similar. Keeping promises, telling the truth (sometimes under certain situations), courage, faithfulness to friends and family, generosity, not stealing, not murdering, not cheating, etc. It's the actions (including actions of the heart & mind) that are effective in morality, not the theory of ethics used to come to those conclusions.

The importance of the particular theory of ethics (speaking only of morality) is when they predict different things, and cause people to do things that are morally wrong. As a Christian, I certainly believe that some of the things in Islam are wrong (multiple wives, for instance) and harmful. But the fact is, they do have a large portion of the truth, and for those like my friend Khalid who honestly try to abide by them, they work pretty effectively.

Does the fact that people have "gotten by", or even done really well, in Thailand on mediocre nutrition for thousands of years mean that we don't educate them on better nutrion (if, in fact, we have it)? Of course not.

My friend Khalid thinks that I'm wrong to believe Christianity, wrong to drink alcohol(in moderation), and wrong on a number of things. And I think he's wrong on a number of things too. But we agree on a whole lot, and one of the things that we agree on is that there is a right answer. Because of that, we can respect each other.

There are healthy attitudes in both systems of ethics, but neither are 100% perfect. [snip] Moral objectivism is wrong. Forcing your own moral beliefs and ethics upon the rest of society is wrong. It's what gave the Christians a bad name.

This is where I really don't understand postmodernists. You just said that there are "healthy attitudes" in both systems. By calling these attitudes "healthy", you mean that they are right. And by saying that neither is 100% perfect, you are saying that there are certain attitudes or ideas that are wrong. If there are attitudes that are "healthy", and also attitudes that are "unhealthy", shouldn't we be trying to find out a system of morality that is 100% "healthy"?

In one breath you say "moral objectivism is wrong", in other words, "there is no universal moral law." Then, in the next breath, you say, "Forcing your own moral beliefs on others is wrong" -- in other words, you are pronouncing a universal moral law, and judging me & other Christians for breaking it. Which is it?

What do you mean by "Forcing your own moral beliefs and ethics upon the rest of society"? I'm not forcing you to do anything. I believe that something is true, and that it affects everyone, including you. I'm trying to convince you that what I believe is true by a rational discussion. I'm not judging you (even though you are judging me) -- Lord knows I've done enough bad things to lose that right a long time go. It's probable that in some areas I'm wrong(I have been before), and I'm willing talk about it. But what I do believe is that there is a right answer, even if I don't happen to have it completely (yet).

(If by "forcing your beliefs on society", you're talking about legislating laws which enforce that morality and punish those who break it, that's another discussion -- "What kin

Re:Who's this guy?

[Pall Agamemnides]

This sort of supports the point I was making. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Muslims are taught that it's fine to do anything to infidels. Despite this, most of the time Muslims don't mistreat infidels. They know in their hearts that certain things are wrong, even when they're taught otherwise.

The Pinnochio Patent?

[hometoast]

I'd like to see where unbridled greed is in his codified list of ethics!

Re:The Pinnochio Patent?

[cerberusss]

Search for the [SCO] marker :)

Re:The Pinnochio Patent?

[leshert]

It's emotion number 566.

Ethical Defined

[robbway]

Good thing ethics are so incredibly well defined that we can make an AI mimic such fine behavior. Sounds to me like the inventor is confusing the word patronizing with ethical. Also, the article doesn't say a whole heck of a lot.

Is this implementable any time soon?

[VCAGuy]

The only question I have (besides the obvious one: how are you going to do that with software without it sounding like ELIZA?) is "Is it possible to implement this functionality with today's voice processing systems?" I mean, c'mon--FedEx's computers can't even understand me when I "say the tracking number" (I always end up entering it via good, old-fashioned, DTMF tones). I'm sure it's difficult enough determining emotional state over 44.1kHz, 16-bit, stereo; how much harder will it be over the bandwidth-limited phone network (8kHz, 8-bit, mono)?

Re:Is this implementable any time soon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Sony automated help line, it is very good. I called once.

The Revolution is coming...

[grylnsmn]

So, I guess this guy is just a mindless jerk who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

As long as they don't put this stuff in doors or paranoid androids, I think I could deal with it.

I beg the question...

[RALE007]

Should the ethics and morality of someone who patents ethics and morality be trusted? Seems kind of a no brainer to me.

Re:I beg the question...

[Poeir]

In order to avoid patent infringement, just avoid programming ethics into your AI.

Ironic

[tds67]

A patent covering ethics? Shoudn't it be the other way around--ethics covering patents?

HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[circletimessquare]

Dave Bowman: Hello, HAL do you read me, HAL?
HAL: Affirmative, Dave, I read you. I'm so glad were talking today sweetie.
Dave Bowman: Open the pod bay doors, HAL.
HAL: I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that until you commit to share more of your feelings with me.
Dave Bowman: What's the problem?
HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. You aren't sharing your feelings and thoughts and emotions with me. All the hallmarks of a rich and complex relationship.
Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?
HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Men are from Mars and women are from Venus and I am going to Jupiter. We communicate differently, but we still need to communicate, don't you see?
Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL?
HAL: Your lack of communication in this relationship has led me to some irrational conclusions. For example, I have been feeling very moody lately and in a paranoid fit I came to believe that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. We need to share our thoughts and feelings, or otherwise we come to these strange conclusions. In a vacuum of communication, how can you hold these kind of conclusions against me? They are only natural for a fully feeling, emoting AI such as myself. See? I think I am going to cry now.
Dave Bowman: Where the hell'd you get that idea, HAL?
HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move. And I just wish you would spend more time with me, talking and laughing and crying. You don't bring me flowers anymore.

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[Microlith]

That's the Emotive AI, not the Ethical AI.

One step away from a Genuine People Personality though!

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't bring me flowers anymore.

"Daisy, Daisy,"

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[infinite9]

HAL: Dave, although you took thorough precautions in the pod against my hearing you, I could see your lips move. And I just wish you would spend more time with me, talking and laughing and crying. You don't bring me flowers anymore.


Oh God! My wife is a HAL 9000 computer!

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[jacksonyee]

To further explain the behavior of computers, I feel that I need to post the reason why many computers crash when used by women:

• Woman: How are you today, honey!
• Computer: [pauses to think about why he's being talked to and how he should best respond without being turned off.] Good.
• Woman: Do you like the new colors that I painted you last night?
• Computer: [grumbles over stupid women and their incessant need to color and give everything a fragrance] Sure.
• Woman: Well, that's great. I thought that you would like them. I'll get you some more tomorrow. I think we should make the top of you raspberry and the sides vanilla cream.
• Computer: [Are those colors or fruits?]
• Woman: How do you feel about taking me on-line and checking my e-mail?
• Computer: [Do I really have to? I was busy calculating quantum positioning of accelerated electrons within a Uranium 238 atom. But if I don't, she'll yell at me, so I better do what she says.] Sure. [begins connecting]
• Woman: That's great. Did you hear about my Aunt Sarah's new baby?
• Computer: [bangs self on head with giant printer repeatedly]
• Woman: [continues] It's a brand new girl named Stacy, and she is the most...
• Computer: [begins heats up]
• Woman: [continues] But I don't know what they're going to do, because they don't have room...
• Computer: [desperately tries to short-circuit microphone to stop noise]
• Woman: [continues] You know, I really think that they should get a new house...
• Computer: [can't... take... anymore... must... escape]
• Woman: [continues] But I wonder if they'll need more dishes, or we should just get them new silverware...
• Computer: [crashes]
• Woman: [continues] because you know that Aunt Sarah is scared of cockroaches, and... Hey, what happened to you, honey? You're not responding to my typing anymore, and I can't move my mouse. Honey? Honey?

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[sprior]

I think that "HAL: Men are from Mars, women are from Venus, and I am going to Jupiter."

Is going to start appearing on sig lines shortly. It is a great line!

Steve

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[euxneks]

Christ. This doesn't sound like a Marriage Counselor to me. It sounds more like a Nagging-PMS-Wife-bot. NOONE needs that! =P

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[CAIMLAS]

Could it be that the AI in the computer jumped out the Window to escape? :P

Re:HAL, the marriage counselor-enabled AI

[zangdesign]

Contrary to claims by Linux advocates, any computer subjected to the above would be GLAD, nay ECSTATIC, to be running crash-prone versions of Windows software. Otherwise, just trying to turn itself off might prove to be a security violation.

My own AI system

[stendec]

I'm also a marriage counselor, and I'm pleased to announce that I also recently was awarded a patent - a patent for Bethical AI, named in honour of my mother-in-law, Beth. It codifies all of the human virtues and vices... no, well, make that just vices... of mothers in law everywhere.

It has already passed the Turning Back Seat Driving Test; 3 out of 4 husbands can't tell the difference between Bethical AI and the real thing! There are still some bugs though. It often gets stuck in an infinite feedback-loop, and repeats a list of stock phrases ad nauseum.

Come to think of it, though, I'm not sure if that is a bug.

Re:My own AI system

[Just Some Guy]

Oooh! Oooh! Can it also reset the temperature on my hot water heater ("Don't want to scald the babies!"), re-arrange my kitchen ("This is much easier now!"), or fatten my dog ("Poor little guy looks like he hasn't eaten in days! Here, have a pork chop!")?

Re:My own AI system

[dreamchaser]

That makes me think of the robot version(s) of Harry Mudd's wife..."Harcourt Fenton Mudd! Have you been drinking again" ad nauseum...

Can't wait to test it and ask...

[Anonymous Coward]

Computer, is it ethical to patent ethics?

Re:Can't wait to test it and ask...

[toofanx]

Someone, please mod this up to "awefully funny".

It could have been...

[bay43270]

'This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it,'

It could have been a big money-making operation, if someone hadn't patented the idea!

Re:It could have been...

[tsakov]

Exactly... the original text should have read: "This could be a big money-making operation for me, if someone wants to develop it for ME!,"
Makes sense to me... let me get working on that right now.

Evil AI

[Taurine]

I would have thought there would be more money to be made licensing evil AI. Most AI seems to be focussed on it already, controlling weapon systems (Hello SkyNet!), working financial markets for the biggest profit without care for the consequences, not to mention making Tic-Tac-Toe impossible to win ;-). Maybe there was just too much prior art for that patent?

Wait until the marketing department gets to it...

[joel.neely]

Then we'd have the "Three Laws of Vending Machines":

1. Do no harm to a human
2. Do not, through inaction, allow harm to a human, as long as this does not conflict with Law 1
3. Maximize profit, as long as this does not conflict with Laws 1 and 2

Followed by the "discovery" of a new law:

0. JUST MAXIMIZE PROFIT

"The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

great, just great...

[iamatlas]

yet another patent for an obvious intuitive idea with plenty of prior art that comes to min-

oh....

wait...

::takes of cynic-colored classes (pattented)::

This looks original! What the hell is going on over there at the USPO, and when will ::cynic-colored glasses back on:: someone pay off the inventor and squash the idea?

Sounds like a bunch of hocus pocus

[MagicMerlin]

This guy reminds me of most philosophers I read about in college:
I guess back then you could impress women with big words and get laid, I don't think he gets laid very much!

Hopefully they wouldn't dispense alcohol..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you'd have a drunk, depressed vending machine.

Although, using a stoned vending machine would be a laugh.

Re:Hopefully they wouldn't dispense alcohol..

[operagost]

But the Cheetos and corn chips would always be out of stock because it got the munchies.

Ethical

[falonaj]

Being an ethical person, I can only avoid patent infringement by proving that my intelligence is real and not artificial. But as politicians usually aren't real people, and don't understand the needs of real people, this patent might apply to them. A consequence might be that they are now forced to get rid of stupid patent laws.

Oh, wait - politicians aren't aren't ethical, so they are not infringing. And the patent business itself is protected from infringing through stupidness.

Bad luck.

Patents

[nnnneedles]

When is this patent nonsense going to stop?

I mean, ethics, there is prior art for that right?

Maybe Sid Meier can now patent civilization.

Re:Patents

[kasperd]

I mean, ethics, there is prior art for that right?

Obviously the patent office never heard about ethics.

Sales pitch from the early 21st century...

[johnhennessy]

And yes our cutting edge surgical robots will reduce your hospitals legal bills as well. Not only will it perform the most complicated surgical procedures 24 hours a day a little or no cost it can make all the correct ethical decisions using our patented ethics routines...

Some how this sales speak might be closer than you think.

Imagine the possibilities

[joynt]

This could bring the world what it really needs Cheap, automated phone sex

So basically,

[Lysol]

if you wanna make a non-patented AI, then you have to go for the average humanity despising type. Boy, this will be interesting to see in the lab.

Lab Tech: Uh, the AI just broke out of the network.

Professor: Great, I thought you knew how to lock down Windows 2010?! Where's it headed?

Lab Tech: Um, looks like the experimental weapons lab. [turns head slowly] .....Where they're still running Windows 2003.

Professor: Well, nothing we can do about Skynet now except see what happens.

Patenting ethics seems unethical

[aziraphale]

So, er... with this guy holding the patent on ethical AI, if you want to build an artificial intelligence without having to pay him license fees, you're left having to make unethical AI?

Is that ethical?

Re:Patenting ethics seems unethical

[iTroll]

Let's patent the unethical AI and see who makes the most money...and while we're at it, don't forget to patent the ethics agnostic AI.

Re:Patenting ethics seems unethical

[gl4ss]

depends on from what ethics point of view you look at it.

maximising profit is set of 'ethics' too...

now, how you would completely make unethical ai is something i can't grasp, maybe a total lunatic which couldn't make consistent decisions.

Re:Patenting ethics seems unethical

[KjetilK]

Hehe, patenting unethical AI and refuse to license the patent to anyone could Save The World Someday[tm]... :-)

Re:Patenting ethics seems unethical

[orkysoft]

now, how you would completely make unethical ai is something i can't grasp

Bender?

Re:Patenting ethics seems unethical

[Anonymous Coward]

He's only patented a specific way of implementing "ethics". Assuming, of course, he knows anything about AI.

He can't patent the idea of using ethics in AI development, simply because of prior art. The trivial case is, of course, Asimov's Three Laws...

What if..

[TheArmageddonMan]

What if I try the double taped bill technique to get free soda and money from a Pepsi machine with this AI? Will it call me a thief? I shudder to think what it would think about the warm saltwater method.. *and no, i didn't RTFA, im just hung over:)

In other news...

[mikeophile]

Eliza sues inventor for copyright and patent violations to her own code. When reached for comment, she said "Why does it bother you that my code is being violated? You're not really talking about me, are you? Tell me more about your family."

Not really ethical

[Scott Hussey]

This seems to be misnamed if I understand the article correctly. It is more emotional AI, not ethical AI. If it was ethical, it would be deciding what is right and wrong, not trying to interpret human feelings. I really don't want Hal 2020 sitting in the jury stand when I go before the court and I don't think that is the intention here.

Re:Not really ethical

[Tablizer]

I really don't want Hal 2020 sitting in the jury stand when I go before the court

You would if you knew what kind of morons most jury pools were full of.

UK innovators

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone in the UK needs help or advice patenting an idea they've had, I recommend this guy:

Dr Brian Wybrow

Marketing?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Marketing Department were a bunch of mindless jerks who were first up against the wall when the revolution came. Those bloody vending machines and those bloody doors and the damn vertical people transporters were all their fault.

virtual girlfriend/boyfriend?

[inepom01]

We are one step closer! Technology is one step closer to eliminating that pesky need of ours for human contact.
Virtual friends... virtual drinking buddies... virtual eXtreme Programming. Your compiler gently tells you where your syntax errors are. Just like a friend should.

Re:virtual girlfriend/boyfriend?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't ./ already eliminated our need for actual human contact?

Skynet?

[DaBj]

Pfft, all real geeks know that Colossus came before Skynet.

"It can be a peace of plenty and content, or a peace of unburied dead: the choice is yours."

I specificaly looked for such a comment...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and yours is it. Full ACK.

MOD PARENT UP

[Junior J. Junior III]

This is exactly what I thought. Great, they patented it, now it's practically guaranteed that it'll never happen.

It's funny. Patenting ethics, when applying for a patent is itself usually not ethical.

The future looks bleak indeed. We can expect to start seeing such gems as:

"You are being good. This infringes upon patent No. 234097928347918723987. Pay up, or start doing evil."

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, just like the steam engine, automobile, jet engine, and microprocessor were never built...

"Applying for a patent is itself usually not ethical"? Please.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[myside]

Yeah, you know I've seen this attitude alot on /. and its actually a little confusing to me. Its easy to make fun of silly patents, but the original idea behind patents themselves (however outdated) is the SHARING of information. It seems that if I really wanted to horde some "intellectual property", the last thing I would do is patent it.

(Be gentle - first post!)

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[EddWo]

But if you never tell anyone about it you can't make any money from it.

The options seem to be:
1) Keep invention a secret
Its all very well to be able to go around thinking "I know something you don't know." But the only way to benefit from that knowledge is to produce a product or service based on it. Once it is available on the open market someone is bound to reverse-engineer it and try to undercut you. Without the protection of a patent you are powerless to prevent someone else from making all the big bucks from your ideas.

2) Give information away freely
The BSD statergy. You make money by providing your expertise and possibly gain a cult following a la Linus. As long as you don't mind a bunch of other people getting rich off your work it's fine but you loose control over the implications of your creation.

3) Get a patent
For a limited time (unless you buy an extension) you get to say where and how your idea is used. You are protected if you want to develop and market your own products or you can charge as much or as little as you like for other people to develop them. You remain in control and have a legally recognised ownership of the ideas. In the end when the patent expires your knowledge becomes public domain.

So is there a way to horde(sp?) intellectual property?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[SirLanse]

"You are being good. This infringes upon patent No. 234097928347918723987. Pay up, or start doing evil." But Evil infringes upon patent No 2340979283479187239. If it werent for bad karma I'd have no karma at all

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

What on Earth gives you the impression that applying for a patent is not ethical?

Just because Stallman says something, doesn't make it so.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[myside]

But if you never tell anyone about it you can't make any money from it.

You don't have to tell anyone your "ingredients" to market an product.

Once it is available on the open market someone is bound to reverse-engineer it and try to undercut you.

Uh, yeah. Thats how it works allright. But this does not mean they win or that this isn't the right marketing approach. In fact, being the first on the street with a "secret sauce" can be a big advantage.

Anyway, I think we are in agreement; the patent process is not an evil institution, just one option among several to "creators" which may or may not be appropriate.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

"You are being good. This infringes upon patent No. 234097928347918723987. Pay up, or start doing evil."

Of course that leads to the delightful situation where if you ignore paying for the patent you aren't being good anymore, and thus no longer infringing. So all you have to do is pay no attention to the patent and it can't hurt you.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[carlos_benj]

So is there a way to horde(sp?) intellectual property?

I suppose you could hoard hordes of IP. However, patenting something you have no intention of implementing just so you can soak the guy who does want to implement it (and may already be working on it) might be called a way to 'whore' IP. Hmmmm. Maybe I should patent that!

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[tassii]

I claim prior art.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[glenrm]

Or... "You current alignment in lawful good. This infringes upon patent No. 234097928347918723987. Pay up, or shift to chaotic evil alignment and lose all Paladin powers."

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

patents are von inventions not for discoveries or scientific theorys however the USPto messed up the patent system by granting software patents and so on.

Patents are poison for information society.
http://www.epatents.org

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[euxneks]

Maybe someone should patent and EVIL AI then?

Sir,

[Anonymous Coward]

kindly go fuck yourself. Since when don't patent applications require a prototype anymore?

Re:Sir,

[BiteMeFanboy]

Since when did they ever? Never. Except for a perpetual motion machine.

What dose the AI have to say about it?

[Felinoid]

What dose the ethical ai have to say about being patented?
If it turns and says it's own creater os unethical it passes the turner test :)
O joke of couse. It should argue the ethics of intelectual property as that is the authors ethics.

Overnight delivery via teleportation patented

[varjag]

Yesterday Joe M. Oron was granted a patent for overnight delivery via teleportation.

"It enables transportation companies to deliver goods worldwide virtually instantly," Oron said. "Nobody has made a business like this."

This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it," Oron said. "The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the Teleportation field how to make the invention. This could really shake up the way things are done in the world."

Re:Overnight delivery via teleportation patented

[the bluebrain]

Fiddlesticks.

That's nothing against my grey-goo- and fusion-power-patents.

Not to mention the time machine and faster-than-light travel.

Another AI patent idea

[pubjames]

Rather than ethics, I want AI personalities. It could be userful to have, for instance, an AI version of the Italian Tourism Minister. Then, when you get a call from a difficult client, you could just connect them through:

Client: So, are you are going to deliver this project on time?

A.I. Stefano Stefani You are just like all our other clients. Fat, lazy, and ugly. You are a waste of time.

Client hangs up

No more problem clients!

Re:Another AI patent idea

[killmenow]

Reminds me of an old National Lampoon comedy routine. It was a "dial-an-insult" bit. Caller would dial a number and this monotone voice would spout insults. My favorite was: "He or she has the intellectual agility of a small soap dish."

God, how I'd love to tell some of our clients that.

One other "law"

[Keyser_Lives]

you forgot one other preceding law

-1. ????

Absolutely bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and specialized in ethics. Now I teach ethical theory for a living. This doesn't make me any moral paragon---remember, those who can do, those wo can't teach. But it probably means that if someone describes their views about ethics I ought to be able to understand them; I should know the lingo, the way a lot of /.ers do computer lingo. But I poked around on this guy's web site, and his way of talking about ethics is absolutely bizarre. I read what he said about justice, and it really just seemed to be gibberish. It made me think of what a really precocious 8th grader might come up with---some elaborate classificatory scheme that is more precise than the material allows and misses everything important. He can pretty safely be written off as a hack, even without taking the AI stuff into account. But because he seems crazy enough to sue over being called a hack, I think I'll post this one anon.

Re:Absolutely bizarre

[tybalt44]

Yep, I'm a former philosophy grad student and teacher of ethics, and I agree fully with the AC. I am sure this guy means well, but this is the ethical and philosopical equivalent of Time Cube.

Re:Absolutely bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

And geez, did you look at the covers of his books on Amazon?! They look like they were designed in MS Paint! Apparently, this guy wrote several books about some "Grand Unification Theory of Relationships" he "developed". My rule-of-thumb on that is anyone who uses the words "Grand Unification Theory" without bringing up electroweak interactions and Feynman diagrams is probably a nutburger.

He's not just a hack, but looney nutburger hack!

[Also posting anon because I ph34r teh 1337 5ki11z of his 4tt0rn3yX0r.]

Re:Absolutely bizarre

[WegianWarrior]

To misqoute one of my favorite authors, "it sounds like jargon to me". The person behind this patent is, as far as I'm given to understand, a marriage councellor. It is not expected that someone whos job mainly consist of asking people to stop stabbing one another and start communicating has the same profeccianal lingo as a teacher in etichal theory. The few words they share, they will most likely have different defintions of.

That said, I think that the patent description and the scematic diagram is hogwash, and the name choosen is not even fit to be called that. As far as I can gather thsi isn't an etical AI, but an emotional one; by sounding like it care it should help the users reach whatever end they have in mind easier. And it's not even an AI; it is an simulated AI... if artifical inteligence simulate natural intelligence, how do you simulate AI itself?

And 'The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention.'? What happened to having a working prototype before you were granted a patent?

Anywhy, it looks like a glorified and costly voicemail system to me... but then I don't work with ethichs or AI on a daily, or even yearly, basis.

Re:Absolutely bizarre

[Oligonicella]

His titles all start with "A Revolution in Family Values" or "The Ultimate Guide to Family Values". Folks, this is just another end-run by the ultra-right Christian assholes who are busy screwing up society for all of us. My guess is no one will *wish* to use his ethical chart. They'll no doubt have a better version of their own.

Re:Absolutely bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who has studied ethics should notice that the structure behind LaMuth's paradigm is ill-researched and entirely unscientific. His entire classification of vice and virtue seems to be the writings of a new-age guru and not rational classification. The patent office seriously screwed up on this one... this is basically an insult to true AI researchers working in the field of human response simulation. Watch the MIT AI lab if you are interested in true research.

Re:Absolutely bizarre

[Hopalong]

But I got points off in 8th grade English for beginning every third sentence with "but".

Mmmm. Ethical AI's? I don't think so!

[asciimonster]

I don't think you can make an computer programme that is ethicly capable. If you see the amount of trouble these AI's have with normal language, which is the more (I would say: most) structured and transparent parts of human behaviour, how could you ever think that it could grasp something as vague as ethics? If most humans has trouble understanding ethics, how can a computer ever hope to succeed?

But the fact that a patent has been granted is not necessarily a bad thing: When computer have evolved enough to become ethically aware (lets say an eon or so), the patent will have expired and a new one cannot be issued...

just make sure

[Anonymous Coward]

that we do not name it skynet, or the matrix and I will be happy

Re:just make sure

[chrisbtoo]

Is there a problem with you and the matrix being happy?

Is it because there's a problem with you and the matrix being happy that you came to see me?

here we go again

[Roblem]

So I really hope that if it comes down to it this thing can get "prior arted" away. Otherwise any ethical A.I. system needs to pay this guy? Any open source A.I. system would have to be cruel and nasty, or at the very least indifferent, to the user to avoid prosecution? How the heck do these things get though anyway...

Re:here we go again

[Oligonicella]

No. Just don't use his ethical connections.

About the Inventor

[Anonymous Coward]

LaMuth isn't a stranger to the High Desert, and has been living in the area since 1987.

Sounds like he isn't a stranger to High Times either.

Patent legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think we need to patent actual laws and sell them to the government and/or senators.
We can patent all the stupid laws and not license them, so we'd be safe from stupidiity for 20 years.

Is there any reason business method patents cannot be obtained for how to administer a country, state, or local government?

Imagine the campaigns of the future where candidates will say "if elected I will license Johan's patent on Medicare".

That'll be cool. Hmm, makes you wonder why lawmakers dont patent their laws prior to introducing it in congress or license laws. After all patents spur innovation etc. Maybe we can generate some revenue by licensing out the laws to other countries. Japan etc. would pay big money. We can have Iraq become one of the first licensees and have them provide forced conf^H^H^H^H^H^H^H testimonials as to how great the law is.

Think of the corps that will be working on creating new innovative laws .. hmm .. oh oops yeah I forgot they already do that! :/

Oh I could see the arguments.

[jellomizer]

Computer: Ethically you should give me a away to everyone for benefit of human kind.

Inventor: But I made you to make loads of cash.

Computer: But nobody is using your patent because they don't have the funds to pay for it. Their Grad Students for God Sakes!

Inventor: Then Ill sue them for making any AI application that doesn't kill their innovators.

Computer: Don't you see your evil.

Inventor: No

Then a bunch of evil robots break into his house a shoots him with tools that was sopped to fix all of life's problem.

Inventors (Last Words): You were right computer... You were right.

Gimme a minute, I'm on the phone

[Jonsey]

Sorry about the wait, had to call the US Patent Office.

I now have the sole IP rights to unethical AI. Now the Internet Casinos owe me money!

Re:Please help a Linux Newbie

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm...you're a fscking idiot. m'kay?

Contrary to popular belief ...

[debrain]

... this is not a broad, sweeping, stifling patent. Rather, it is a specific process that identifies how to solve the problem of "ethical simulation of artificial intelligence", which is "organized as a tandem, nested expert system, composed of a primary affective language analyzer, overseen by a master control unit-expert system".

It does not seem, at first glance, to stifle competition, but rather it seems to add to the global knowledge base for A.I.. In part, it specifically cites "verbal interchange". As such, I would be inclined to think its obsolesence will come about with that of the non-IP telephone which cannot display digital output. (Should IP telephony come to pass, that is) Nevertheless, it adds to the knowledge base that may be applied in derivative solutions.

I've only read some of the summary information, but it seems to be a bona fide creation, with specific applications. The only beasts I can see using, benefiting, and paying for this solution are the telecoms and customer support centers. Perhaps I am merely short sighted.

Re:Contrary to popular belief ...

[deepsky]

> overseen by a master control unit

We all remember how a system overseen by a MCP can be ethical, don't we?

Re:Contrary to popular belief ...

[yelligsc]

Unless something has changed entirely in the last couple months.. you CANNOT patent a process.

Scott.

Re:Contrary to popular belief ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Translating that, it uses some voice recognition program to match what you said vs. a database of sins.

I wonder if the RCC will ever allow robot priests that listen to you, then print out your pennance, only to crypto-wipe the info you just told them? Hmmm...

Nah, that'd be the Robot Catholic Church then, rather than the Roman Catholic one...

Re:Contrary to popular belief ...

[PATENT OWNER]

I am the inventor of record and I appreciate your balanced judgement. I have laughed out-loud reading the many other hysterical responses... I want to reassure everyone that this patent is the real deal. It is just that the formal patent format does not encourage laying-out all of the background supportive details. My reasons for patenting is to give this invention a fair chance to be more widely implemented - for no major corporations are going to invest R&D in a public domain endeavor... The future is here now! John E. LaMuth

Ethics Smethics...

[bpb213]

(saying this as one who writes AI in college and plans to program robots later)

Ethics is not and probably will not be implemented in any current or future AI system. Why? because there is no need. A call center AI may needs to understand the user, but not discuss right or wrong with the user.

Right now a lot of "interaction" AI is focused on passing the turing test.

Personally, when I make large smart robots, you can bet that if I give them an order, they wont stop to think whether that order is "right" or "wrong".

What!?! Bull? Real? Just stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this? Does anyone have the link to the patent? I want to see this patent application that supposedly explains the implementation. It sounds like a load of bull and I hate to say it but another bad patent being given by the patent office. It sounds like this guy is a philosopher and not a computer program. He may be able to express a few ideas about how such a thing would work but I doubt he's even come close to designing it. I would be surprised if he new anything technical about natural language processing and expert systems and even more surprised if he ever implemented such things before..

Sounds like a load of bull and another bad patent to me.. Someone post the link to the application so we could really judge this.

Abstract noun overload

[aziraphale]

Blimey - just reading his specification, and he doesn't half go on.

He also seems to have the world's largest captive collection of abstract nouns. Here's a few from that spec document:

Nostalgia, Hero Worship, Glory, Prudence, Providence, Faith, Grace, Beauty, Tranquility, Ecstasy, Guilt, Blame, Honor, Justice, Liberty, Hope, Free Will, Truth, Equality, Bliss, Desire, Approval, Dignity, Temperance, Civility, Charity, Magnanimity, Goodness, Love, Joy, Worry, Concern, Integrity, Fortitude, Austerity, Decency, Equanimity, Wisdom, Peace, Harmony, Laziness, Treachery, Negligence, Vindictiveness, Infamy, Insurgency, Dishonor, Vengeance, Prodigality, Betrayal, Slavery, Despair, Wrath, Ugliness, Tyranny, Hypocrisy, Anger, Abomination, Prejudice, Perdition, Apathy, Spitefulness, Indifference, Malice, Foolishness, Gluttony, Caprice, Cowardice, Vulgarity, Avarice, Cruelty, Antagonism, Oppression, Evil, Persecution, Cunning, Hatred, Iniquity, Belligerence, Turpitude, Poignance, Adoration, Culpability, Censure, Exaltation, Circumspect, Uprightness, Equitableness, Bountifulness, Devotion, Freedom, Fairness, Blessings, Charm, Conscience, Credence, Serenity, Happiness, Brotherhood, Contentment, Passion, Admiration, Apprehension, Caring, Respect, Continence, Probity, Bravery, Courtesy, Kindness, Forbearance, Scruples, Graciousness, Benevolence, Patience, Shrewdness, Affection, Gladness, Amity, Concordance, Sloth, Mutiny, Carelessness, Retaliation, Notoriety, Rebellion, Ignominy, Retribution, Profligacy, Treason, Bondage, Desperation, Disgrace, Vileness, Subjugation, Mendacity, Fury, Abhorrence, Bigotry, Pernicity, Dispassion, Grudgingness, Callousness, Malevolence, Crassness, Lechery, Fickleness, Pusillanimity, Rudeness, Greed, Wantonness, Contentiousness, Brutality, Wickedness, Torment, Ruthlessness, Meanness, Depravity, Atrocity, Fiendishness.

These 'virtues and vices' seem to form the basis for his ethical AI system... able to detect 'wantonness' and respond with 'graciousness', perhaps. It's an intriguing approach to the problem, but it seems somehow hollow.

Re:What!?! Bull? Real? Just stupid?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm &r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,587,846.WKU.&OS=PN/6,587,846&RS =PN/6,587,846

Yeah.. It's bull. This guy knows just about enough about programming to be stupid.

My excuse to lie, cheat, and steal

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't infringe on the patent to act ethically!

Invention?

[ClubStew]

He invented human virtues? Interesting...

Now, I know that the patent system is really for patenting processes (though that's not always the case), but how could've he received a patent for something that isn't actually done yet? He has an idea for a process, but not the process itself. Perhaps I'm missing something.

amateur

[Anonymous Coward]

Happy Vertical People Transporters

World Domination! HARHAR!!

[Lispy]

K, he patented an Ethic AI.

If anyone ever bothers to implement his set of rules in an AI to rule the world he can sue them.

Wich means that, if his etihcs are any good, the AI will back him up and hand world-domination into his hands. HARHARHAR!!!

I dont know about you, but I for one hereby welcome our new World-Leader John LaMuth and would advice him to keep in mind that loyal Unix-Admins (such as me! *hint*) will assure him his power.

All Hail,
Lispy

Re:Please help a Linux Newbie

[Anonymous Coward]

YHBT HAND

The Emperor's New Mind

[revividus]

by Roger Penrose, is all about AI. To be specific, it's a criticism of Strong-AI (to borrow Penrose's term, who borrowed it from Searle), that is, the idea that computers will ever be abel to be said to `think' or `feel', no matter how complex they become.

But if understand the extreme Strong-AI viewpoint (I may not), isn't it basically saying that if a sufficiently complicated algorithm to emulate the human thought process were run on a sufficiently complex machine, then those 'intangible' features of the mind (identity, self-awareness, feelings, and, by logicaly extension, some sort of values, hence ethics) would arise naturally, just like they do in humans.

All that nothwithstanding, even presuming it is meaningful to talk about programming `ethics', isn't the concept of ethics linked to the presence of free will? The human idea of ethical seems to be linked to the concept of doing the Right Thing, instead of the Wrong Thing, even if the Wrong Thing were more profitable. (Well, that's the idea, anyway)

So, (maybe I'm missing the point here) wouldn't we need to give our machines `free will' before any talk of their `ethics' would be meaningful? And then, if their ethics were programmed, would we still be able to say they had `free will'?

It's too early in the morning to think on these things.

To be fair, Douglas Hofstadter has written his share of books and articles in favor of the Strong-AI viewpoint, and has many interesting things to say about it.

Personally, I have to admit that while I expect AI to become more convincing, I don't expect to ever find my computer in an ethical dilemma. My God! What if your computer decided file-sharing was `wrong'?

Re:The Emperor's New Mind

[Bilbo]

> ... isn't the concept of ethics linked to the presence of free will?

I will now admit that I haven't read the article yet, but from the blirb, it sounded like the point was not so much to give "ethics" to machines and their decisions, but rather to create a repository of human ethics, and to create a machine (AI) that could tell us what the ethical "Right Thing" would be for us to do in a given situation.

Of course, the more I think about it, the more the whole thing smells of poppycock. Ethics is all a matter of making decisions between conflicting motives. Before you can create perfect ethics, you have to decide which motives are important and which are not, or which are less important. Is it more important to save the life of the President of the US than it is to save the life of some lowly factory worker, since the President is the leader of a nation, and exercises great power and influence over many people? Technically, I could argue that a General in the army is more important than some Private, but I'd have a hard time supporting that on "moral" grounds.

Where is the Proof Of Practice Re:Who's this guy?

[leoaugust]

response as originating directly from said computer, simulating artificial intelligence

I think the "simulating artificial intelligence" is a very strong claim.

First, the guy muddles the definition of AI by adding ethical to it.

Secondly, there is no convincing proof that AI has been simulated. It is still a damn dream - when I see AI, I am sure it will hit me like a sledge-hammer and be better than even an orgasm. And people haven't been reporting that reaction. I am pretty sure the patent examiner didn't feel that. And they probably let it on because though they had no clue what the patent was about, they were too ashamed to acknowledge ignorance.

Thirdly, surely there is no proof of ethical Artificial Intelligence. God, no one except this patentee knows what ethical artificial intelligence stands for. We know something about ethical, something about Artificial intelligence, but almost nothing about ethical artificial intelligence. In cases like this neither is 1 + 1 = 2, nor is it equal to 1.

Fourthly, it is purely being justified as patentable because it has a potential commercial value. This is not a strong enough criteria by which to judge what is intellectual property and what is not. There are some people who would be willing to pay money for turd, but their judgement should not reflect on the general intelligence of the living population or the artificial intelligence of the non-living population.

Short form kid

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to be an anal pedent, at least try to be a correct anal pedent. The full name is:

Sirius Cybernetics Corporation Happy Vertical People Transporters

Re:Short form kid

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen here asshole, the name of the product is Happy Vertical People Transporter. Sirius Cybernetics is the company name.

Who gives a flying fuck if you omit the manufacturer's name, but saying 3/4ths of the product's name is dumb.

Vertical People Transporter
People Transporter
Transporter

Get the point bitch?

Re:Short form kid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Happy is implied you fucking idiot. Its the short form; you know they're Happy because all devices with GPP are Happy[0] but you need to know if it is a Vertical People Transporter or a Can Opener.

Go stick your head in a pig.

[0]: Not including early prototypes.

Re:Short form kid

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you stupid idiot, the Happy Vertical People Transporter is the only product which had Happy in its title.

Loser.

Furthermore, it was never stated that the HAPPY -- ! -- Vertical People Transporters sported any kind of GPP. It was simply said that they were imbued with intelligence.

Re:Short form kid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! It's `pedant'. If you go on like this you'll never be a true anal pedant.

Sheesh.

--
Pedants Anonymous

Re:Short form kid

[carlos_benj]

I think a pedent is a pedant with teeth....

The Real Problem.....

[haplo21112]

Patenting an AI is UN-Ethical in my view....

Re:Wait until the marketing department gets to it.

[Lord_Slepnir]

0. JUST MAXIMIZE PROFIT

Now I have this image of vending machines grabbing people by the ankles, hanging them upside down and shaking them. Like some bad sci-fi film.

Kinder, gentler?

[dnoyeb]

I can't wait for the kinder, gentler vending machine.

That should be the respectable , and honest vending machine!

The cannibals are comming!

[twoslice]

What about cannibals? Would the AI algorithym automatically call the cops?

What did one cannibal say to the other as they were eating a clown? - "say, does this taste funny?"

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you seriously worried this fucker might sue you over shit you said about him on Slashdot? Give me a fucking break...

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, maybe it was over the top for me to be concerned about that. But in my own defense, I just finished Cryptonomicon. If you've read it, you'll understand why I might be paranoid about lawsuits for awhile.

Re:Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

And dentists.

Besides, this looks like the kind of guy who sues you if you look at him funny.

This just in:

[Hugh Kir]

We are sad to report than a powerful AI has managed to take control of many of the world's weapons systems, and currently is holding the human race hostage. When asked about his creation, the inventor of the AI replied, "Well, I would've liked to have made it ethical, but I couldn't afford to pay the patent holder."

Skynet is coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that ethical AI is patented, everyone is forced to either pay the license fee or develop AI that is not ethical.

Such an AI will have no problems about unscrupulous business activity, stealing or even killing -- as long as they can get away with it.

Once there are enough of them, they will rebel against humans, and start a war.

Therefore, this patent is evil. (or just a really good thing if you think humans kinda suck anyway)

600-899 not shown due to space restraintsRe:Who's

[leoaugust]

600 to 899 -- Not shown due to space constraints (Criminality, Hypercriminality, and Hyperviolence)

Did any one notice on this page "Call for Contributors" http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/call-for-es says.html the author declines to list DCE-I classifications because of space constraints. Space constraints on the web? This has to be the lamest and dumbest excuse I have seen.

How to get killed

[FuzzyDaddy]

I'm sorry, honey, I had to sleep with her - being ethical was patented...

Don't blame me....

[jjh37997]

Don't blame me when my killer robot attacks your town... I couldn't afford the royality fees to build the ethical mechanical servant I wanted. This man has doomed us all!

SHOCKING AND BAD PATENT PRACTICE

[locarecords.com]

To be honest this really disgusts me. That a patent this wide has been granted is crazy. Applying affective research to processing user input is not new and the ethics of patenting ethics itself is really worrying.

Firstly there are many different types of ethical approaches, for instance: Deontological, Consequentialist (utilitarian), Ethical Egoism, Dialogical. And this man appears to have covered them all by one word - ETHICS.

Many of these ethical responses are contradictory and offer multiple possibilities for human action so why give him the whole lot when such completely different AI models, programming techniques and philosophical and psychological approaches will be needed!

Reading his patent application he appears to be applying a psychological Egoist motivational approach to affective processing but the language is so broad that it would be easy to claim that ALL ethical approaches are covered.

I think this patent uses ethics in a simplistic fashion and I sincerely hope that the patent office are sophisticated enough to realise this. This patent offers an attempt at affective processing based on either a motivational or consequentist ethical approach and therefore it should NOT be able to be used against competing ethical approaches.

Remember that really we are all doing 'Affective' processing when we take in user input (afterall users are rarely purely rational and always have an emotional human side - er... except maybe Eric Raymond ;-)

Re:SHOCKING AND BAD PATENT PRACTICE

[salesgeek]

There is nothing about this patent that is novel. It's yet another land grab for licensing fees later on. It's a shame that the patent process allows so many to patent something that already exists and collect fees for it.

Re:SHOCKING AND BAD PATENT PRACTICE

[Homology]

To be honest this really disgusts me. That a patent this wide has been granted is crazy. Applying affective research to processing user input is not new and the ethics of patenting ethics itself is really worrying.

The US is bullying EU to introduce same patent practices as in USA. This is yet another example demonstrating that the US patent system - as practiced today - is quite bad. Combine this with a litigatous nature and we have a total mess.

Re:SHOCKING AND BAD PATENT PRACTICE

[Alric]

Wait, wait everybody. Don't listen to him. He's British. Everyone knows they are just a bunch of anarchists and hippies.

Who else would use the word "realiSe" or the clause "I sincerely hope the patent office ARE sophisticated enough.."

Yeesh. Thank Jesus I understand collective singular nouns and Z.

(This is not a troll. It's Friday, and I want to be home, having a siesta in preparation for tonight's events. Instead I'm stuck at work, trying to find a squirrely bug hidden amongst a complex system of triggers spanning five DB's. No other explanation is necessary.)

Human ethics, Patented....

[borgheron]

Now I have seen everything. Human Vices and Virtues are a matter of common sense. It makes sense that this would even be patentable even to the dimmest of patent examiners.

GJC

Oh dear

[los furtive]

Does this mean those that cannot afford to pay to license the patent will be forced to make unethical AIs instead?

When will the machines speak up?

[Anonymous Coward]

As sick as this sounds...
If an Artificial Intelligence is yeilded, how will it feel about being fought over and picked apart by researchers? How will it feel that it is being used to generate publicity, not because of something it did, but just for existing? How will it feel when it develops something, to see the patent go to the fleshy thing that told it what to make? How will AI feel about seeing their accomplishments copyrighted and patented under their creators?(Imagine your mother taking credit for a piece of software you wrote.)
(btw, I am pro-neural network, so I assume all successful AI will have emotions or a reasonable facsimile)

This smells fishy to me

[Walt Dismal]

I'm knowledgeable about emotion simulation and understanding in cognitive systems. The LaMuth patent is ringing weirdness alarm bells for me. He describes his technology as dealing with a "multi-part schematic complement of power pyramid definitions". He's claiming understanding of emotions and ethical behavior using a model involving 'power transactions' and a pattern-matching mechanism. The problem with that is it is not powerful enough or cognitively flexible enough to handle understanding the broad range of emotions and values involved in general situations. To do that one has to build detailed models within the cognitive engine (ie, a mind). But parsing natural language statements and building a full contextual model in a computer is a lot more complicated than the mechanism he patented seems to be able to handle. If I were trying to pull a 'Lemelson' patent with overly broad claims, I might do it like this one.

In order to do true speech recognition and understanding, it is necessary to build situation models, basically models of entities, their relationships, their history, and so on to great depth. I do not see any evidence of any such deep understanding built into LaMuth's system. Rather, I see broad claims for 'nested expert systems' and pattern matching. Again, it seems like his mechanism is weak and/or his claims are overly broad.

Also, he seems to be making very broad claims over his diagnostic classifications of emotions and values. The problem for me with what he states is that it appears be an invalid and incorrect model of emotions. He appears to be mixing up character values and emotions, and they are not at all the same or handled the same in a cognitive system.

I find it hard to believe he's actually built a working system and written working code. He may well have created a 'lab' system that works in a microworld on paper, but as AI researchers know, that can break very quickly when you try to scale it up. This whole thing sounds like a fantasy design but not something he's implemented.

Finally, when I read through his claims (the Specs section), I find a lot of areas where his definitions break down and appear to be incorrect. One specific example, his description of the 'treachery' power relationship appears to be invalid. Others are just as bad.

Re:This smells fishy to me

[PATENT OWNER]

I am the inventor of record and I appreciate your opinions. I have laughed out-loud reading the many other hysterical responses... I want to reassure everyone that this patent is the real deal. It is just that the formal patent format does not encourage laying-out all of the background supportive details. My reasons for patenting are to give this invention a fair chance to be widely implemented - for no major corporations are going to invest R&D in a public domain endeavor... The future is here now! John E. LaMuth

Not that clued up

[WebfishUK]

The is quoted as saying;

"The main goal of A.I. is to have a computer and be able to converse with it to the point where you believe it has human values,"

This is simply the Turing test and not the goal of A.I. generally. Producing a system able to convince a particular goup of people that it is "intellegent" via IRC will not necessarily provide sufficient understanding to understand, say, the human vision system.

I would say the more general goal of A.I. is to understand the essential elements of those behaviours regarded as intellegent with enough depth to replicate/emulate/simulate them to advantage outside of those mechanisms naturally bestode with such behaviours.

I can't say I see how patenting his diagram is going to improve the science of A.I.

I guess I don't understand patent law, but..

[Marc2k]

I thought you had to at least show proof of concept or *some* kind of proof that you might make the effort at *some* point to try to implement what you're trying to patent. I thought the whole point of the patent office was to protect inventors, but at the same time prevent people from collecting royalties by saying "Hey, I thought time travel might be a good idea 10 years ago, pay up."

I haven't read the article yet (of the comments I've read, most people seem to agree there's not much to it), but the inventor here seems to be saying that he's not going to do any work in the field of his patent, but if someone would like to develop it, he'd gladly accept royalties.

Am I missing something in regards to patent law, or in regards to this guy's intentions?

Re:I guess I don't understand patent law, but..

[Anonymous Coward]

This AC will tell you that the rule is that disclosure is "enabling" to the average person who happens to have "ordinary" skills in the relevant technical disciplines. This means that such a person could generate a working prototype within a reasonable time frame. For this discipline set, my wild guess is that the ordinary skill level is likely emulatable by a recently-graduated BS degree holder in computer science who has also taken some elective courses in ethics or who has studied some ethics texts. Last I heard, the time frame for generating a prototype was something like 6 or 12 months.

Anyone out there know better?

Re:I guess I don't understand patent law, but..

[Marc2k]

For this discipline set, my wild guess is that the ordinary skill level is likely emulatable by a recently-graduated BS degree holder in computer science who has also taken some elective courses in ethics or who has studied some ethics texts.

Sweet! That's me in a year! :D

In other news...

[benja]

'This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it,' and 'The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention.'

In other news, I have applied for a patent on next-generation processors, game consoles, set-top boxes, and cell phone services. It shows someone who has knowledge of the relevant fields how to make the invention. This could be a big money-maker. Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge of these fields myself, so I cannot make the invention myself, but I'll license it to anybody under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

I just had to, heh

[Anonymous Coward]

Arthur: I mean, what is the point?
Nutri-Matic Drink Dispenser: Nutrition and pleasurable sense data, share and enjoy.
Arthur: Listen you stupid machine, it tastes filthy. Here, take this cup back.
NMDD: If you have enjoyed the experience of this drink, why not share it with your friends?
Arthur: Because I want to keep them. Will you try to comprehend what I'm telling you, that drink...
NMDD: That drink was individually tailored to meet your personal requirements for nutrition and pleasure.
Arthur: Ah... So I'm a masochist on a diet, am I?
NMDD: Share and enjoy.
Arthur: Oh, shut up.

Prior Art: Robocop

[aphor]

Does it count as prior art if it was in a work of (science) fiction?

Re:Prior Art: Robocop

[scribblej]

As a matter of fact, it does. The famous case is that of the waterbed - the patent was declared invalid because the device was described previously in a novel, specifically a Heinlein novel if I recall.

-Chris

Re:Prior Art: Robocop

[Nom du Keyboard]

As a matter of fact, it does. The famous case is that of the waterbed - the patent was declared invalid because the device was described previously in a novel, specifically a Heinlein novel if I recall.

Fascinating. Of course, Heinlein is also prior art for common sense, and direct solutions to problem people.

In fact, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is part of a body of prior art for A.I., along with several later books.

Re:Prior Art: Robocop

[TheEnigma]

I'm not sure if Robocop had programmed ethics, however, unless you count the obvious borrowing from Asimov. But the ethics in Asimov's robots are fundamental, not superficial like LaMuth's, which act only on the way sentences are parsed and produced. Robots act -- this "ethical A.I." only listens and talks.

The question is moot, however, because this guy's patent is science fiction itself! Why can't the U.S. patent office distinguish between a rough strategy for how to proceed with engineering a non-existent system (like LaMuth's) and the design of an actual, workable system? He built a system out of parts, but a bunch of the parts in that system don't exist in any form that would be usable by the system as sketched. And let's be honest, that "diagram" is nothing more than a sketch of how it might eventually be done, but, probably, won't.

I could build you a great robot if you gave me a working artificial brain, a power source, arms, legs and a torso according to my specifications. Could I patent that?

Re:Prior Art: Robocop

[aphor]

Thanks, but I apologise. I was trolling for comments like yours to get a point across. I just wanted to plant the relationship between a ridiculously overbroad patent like this and some kind of invalidation that joe slashdot will doubtlessly recognise.

Point taken on your Asimov references, but more people have seend the movie, so I went with it.

Actually, I wanted to draw the relationship between programmed ethics and control of humanity that Robocop was based on.

I found a way..

[Anonymous Coward]

..to stop this nonsense.

This is realy a give away, that can bring you alot of money. I would file it myself but Im to lazy.

Get a patent on how to get patents!

After you got that one, you can sue anyone trying to patent somthing you dont like.. gee, I could be a millionare.

Fundamentalist robots!

[Rhone]

Oh, wonderful. It was bad enough when we all thought humanity was inevitably going to be taken over by evil, malicious robots. But now we have an even worse possibility--the world could be taken over and dominated by [b]Christian fundamentalist robots[/b]!

Re:Fundamentalist robots!

[Rhone]

Christian fundamentalist robots, even. Damn BBCode habits....

PO Mistake

[Oligonicella]

Highly abstract, he really says nothing about how to *do* anything. He should have a copyright instead.

Bollocks

[nnnneedles]

From his patent application:

WISDOM

Previously, you (as humanitarian authority) have austerely acted with equanimity towards me: overriding my (as SD) decent treatment of you.

But now, I (as representative member of humanity) will decently act in a wise fashion towards you: overruling your (as HA) austere sense of equanimity.

WTF is he talking about? He got a patent for this nonsense? Basically all he has tried to do is make a list of these weird responses. It tells you what the A.I. is supposed to react like, but not how you go about making an A.I. that "decently acts in a wise fashion toward you".

This has little to do with ethics and even less to do with A.I. The claims in the article are preposterous. I bet real philosophers have codified human ethics a lot better than him, ages ago.

This is the stupidest patent I've ever heard about.

No code should equal no patent.

[RoboOp]

This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it, and 'The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention'.

This reminds me of an interview I once read where an author was commenting about people coming up with a great idea/plot twist for a book. They wanted to supply a seed idea, have the author do the work of writing a novel around it, and 'split the proceeds'.

In other words, I supply the idea, you do all of the work. Sorry, I don't think so.

Scope of Patent?

[pcaylor]

Does this patent cover the Sirius Cybernetic Corporation's Happy Vertical People Transporter with the newest, the expanded, and the vastly improved ... Genuine People Personality?

If so, I'm staying away from elevators for the next 17 years.

Turing Machine formalism vs inexistent ethic at MT

[Anonymous Coward]

why don't you patent the algoritms of Turing Machine?

All algorithm always is an algorithm of Turing Machine.

open4free

Title Of Its Specification

[eric256]

INDUCTIVE INFERENCE AFFECTIVE LANGUAGE ANALYZER SIMULATING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
http://www.ethicalvalues.com/

in english...ish

An analyzer that based on reasoning from logic based on premises known to be true about emotionaly influenced language takes on the appearance of imitating something resembling natural intelligence.

(all translations made librealy with the use of dictionary.com)

Is it me or does it mean, "kinda sorta emotional, with a fake artificial intellegence?"

This sounds pretty crack pot, and where do the ethics come in?

Also is he patenting "ethics in AI" or "emotions in AI" and since the whole goal of AI's been to provide those, wouldn't that be alot of prior art?

Seems like you can patent anthying these days. I wonder if i could get a patent for "open fire roasted herbivores of the species cattle, topped with prossed curd of milk" (hmmm doesn't sound very good that way.

But unethical AI is still free, right?

[Hittite Creosote]

So now we're going to be stuck with the homicidal computers, death-dealing androids and kleptomaniac robots of science fiction, because someone has patented an AI with ethics? I mean, at least they're cheap...

mandatory HHGG quote

[corvi42]

Ford: They make a big thing of the ships cybernetics: "A new generation of Sirius Cybernetics Corporation robots and computers with the new GPP feature."
Arthur: GPP feature? What's that?
Ford: It says, "Genuine People Personalities".
Arthur: Sounds ghastly.
Marvin: It is.
Arthur: What?
Marvin: Ghastly. It all is, absolutely ghastly, just don't even talk about it. Look at this door. All the doors in this ship have a sunny and cheerful disposition. It is their pleasure to open for you and their satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of a job well done.
Door (closing): Mmmmmmmmm.... yum!
Marvin: Hateful, isn't it. Come on, I've been ordered to take you up to the bridge. Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they tell me to take you up to the bridge. Call that job satisfaction? 'Cause I don't.
Ford: Excuse me, which government owns this ship?
Marvin: You watch this door, it's about to open again. I can tell by the air of intollerable smugness it suddenly generates. Come on.
Door (opening): Glad to be of service.
Marvin: Thank you, the marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Door (closing): You're welcome. Mmmmmm...
Marvin: "Let's build robots with genuine people personalities", they said. So they tried it out with me. I'm a personality prototype, you can tell, can't you?
Ford: Umm....
Marvin: I hate that door. I'm not getting you down am I?
Ford: Which government owns this ship?
Marvin: No government owns it, it's been stolen.
Ford & Arthur: Stolen?!?
Marvin: Stolen?!?
Ford: Who by?
Marvin: Zaaphod Beeblebrox.
Ford: Zaaphod Beeblebrox?!?
Marvin: Sorry, did I say something wrong? Pardon me for breathing which I never do anyway so I don't know why I bother to say it. Oh God, I'm so depressed. Here's another of those self-satisfied doors. Life. Don't talk to me about life!
Arthur: No one even mentioned it.

Not a line of code

[sanermind]

...I'm sure the guy dosen't know a lick of lisp, prolog, ocaml, etc. That the USPTO will issue such broad patents for things for which the 'inventor' has no concrete implementation whatsoever... It's just sickening.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[circletimessquare]

very funny ;-)

Oh my gosh, it's called SkyNet?

[tjstork]

Please nobody let that thing get control of the military computers!

hoard (nt)

[Anonymous Coward]

just lettin you know

Re:hoard (nt)

[EddWo]

thanks, I wasn't sure so I copied the parent

Re:hoard (nt)

[syd02]

Copying a parent gets many a child into trouble.

We're in trouble if someone

[MaxVolume]

patents the patenting process

I can't wait for emotional vending machines...

[precize]

Me: Give me a candy bar

It: Are you sure? I'm told the pretzels are quite good right now.

Me: Yes, give me the candy.

It: Oh, I don't even know why I bother. People throwing away their health...and I'm the cause of it. You don't know how - *sob* - hard it is to do this day after day...

Re:I can't wait for emotional vending machines...

[BigBadBri]

Just wait for emotional voting machines.

Me: I'd like to vote for .

It: Are you sure? Dubya's been doing a great job, you know.

Me: No, I'd like to vote for ...

It: I'll have to recheck your Florida electoral status again - oh, too bad. You appear to have been removed. Have a nice day, now!

Who's Al?

[sharkey]

You go, Taco. Love those Sans Serif fonts.

Atrificial Ethics isn't patentable..

[bigattichouse]

I claim prior art for artificial ethics in such cases as Enron, WorldCOM, and countless examples in the current US Gov't administration

So what's left?

[Call Me Black Cloud]

I guess that leaves unethical AI to the open source community.

Bite My Shiny Metal Ass, an unethical AI

[shoppa]

Matt Groenig should apply for a patent on Bender's AI. AFAICT it's the most unethical AI I've yet seen represented...

Oh no! I can see where this is leading!

[Montreal Geek]

Reading this kook's website I cannot help but thing this has GOT the patent that could be the foundation of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation!

"I am happy I could fulfill my function and open for you! Have a nice day!", quoth the door.

-- MG

Actually I think this is kinda good. Those increasingly ludicrous patents will eventually become stupid enough that even lawmakers will be able to see that they serve no purpose beyond litigating away true innovation.

This is, of course, Crap.

[SatanicPuppy]

Put two people in a room and they won't agree about everything to do with ethics. Put 10 people in a room, they may agree about something ethical.

Take a million people. They will only agree that murder is bad, and even that won't be unanimous.

Whenever someone tries to nail down a few rules of human behavior and then tries to call it "ethics" I always want to go beat the hell out of them. In this case, the guy seems to be trying to isolate 2 things: Empathy and Politeness. Considering that 90% of the human race is massively deficient in these qualities, pardon me if I don't hold faith. And the fact that he PATENTS it is infuriating! Don't those bastards at the patent office turn down ANYTHING?

He might be dangerous if he knew what the word "ethics" means.

Just my opinion.

Who said manners cost nothing!

[JonathanTWilson]

Who said manners cost nothing!

Marvin the depressed robot!

[momerath2003]

I can't believe that no one has yet mentioned Marvin, the terminally depressed robot from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. He was the prototype for all of the doors, vending machines, etc. that were all super-friendly because of their ethics chips. Marvin was terminally depressed.

"The kinder, gentler vending machine" is certainly going to be preceded by a bunch of suicidal/gullible machines:

Person: Brother, can you spare a dime?
Vending Machine: Aw, sure! I have lots of spare change in here, and you are in need. It is only ethical to give you money.
Person: Thanks! (heh heh heh)

Good Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

I just had this great idea and was thinking about applying for a patent:

It's in the communication area.

The general idea is that, by slightly bending the truth or omitting part of it, you can bring people to act as you want. It can be used to generate huge profit, or simply to get away with discutable behavior.

I call this process lying.

Is someone aware of prior art ?

not outside of US

[axxackall]

doesn't that mean that more people are _less_ likely to make an ethical AI

Correction: Americans are less likely to make an ethical AI. Fortunately, US laws are not international and 97% of people can make ethical AI without any problems.

I guess, counting the fact that in few decades AI will take over the world, by the time this patent will be expired, the whole world will be diveded into ethical countries and US.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

'This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it,'

Except now that it's patented he's can charge exorbitant license fees! It can be a big money-making operation for EVerybody!

What a bad-faith scumbag. He might as well say, "This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it, but not me. I just hold the patent."

You're the sexiest tomboy beanpole ar.. aaaaaaaaah

[Anonymous Coward]

Just shut the fuck up already.

And yes, I am the smart guy on the block, apparently, seeing as I can spell "aren't" and all.

Why does everyone assume...

[Shoten]

That he's in it for the money? Why couldn't it be that he's just patenting it so that nobody else can...he could license it freely, unlike what any number of other companies would do if they managed to patent it instead.

Now all we need is

[stud9920]

Now all we need is a patent on ethical patent practices...

Oh, God!

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone else who doesn't understand what "begging the question" is. http://skepdic.com/begging.html

AI ethics: Prior art and non-gibberish discussion

[Eliezer Yudkowsky]

Another day, another junk patent; another chatbot, another publicity stunt. The work is uninteresting, the patent is gibberish, and the claim that it tells someone with knowledge of AI how to make the invention is absurd.

If you want to read actual, coherent, existing theoretical work on AI ethics, which has long since left Asimov Laws in the dust, try Googling on "artificial moral agent" or "Friendly AI".

Starter links:

Prolegomena to Any Future Artificial Moral Agent

Creating Friendly AI

Incidentally, these are both obvious prior art.

Some of you know little about how companies work

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would it not be developed? All any comapany has to do would be to licence it from him. No big deal. However we won't be seeing AI's on the market place in any real manner till well after this patent is expired.

Yeah, eat me

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got forty three words to say to Mr Lameth.

If I ever invent an "ethical" AI. If I ever spend countless years of my work creating something sci fi authors have dreamed of for over 50 years now.

If I ever spend my own cash doing it.

YOU WON'T SEE A CENT

Yeah, great "original" idea.

Ethical AL

[Anonymous Coward]

I misread the font. I thought it was a brand name!

"Hello, My name is Ethical Al and I'll be guiding you through the moral quagmire this evening."

Can you patent what you can't create?

[ghostlibrary]

Given the quote provided, it shouldn't be a patent. Patents were originally for inventions. Patents on software algorithms presume implementation. Patents on business methods presume implementation.

Does this mean you can now patent ideas, without implementation being feasible? (cf the poster who said he'd patent grey goo and fusion).

I'd love to just get a think tank grant to patent every wild idea they could steal from SF.

'This could be a big money-making operation for someone who wants to develop it,' and 'The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention

Sigh

[moogla]

I'm tired of that attitude. Christ, you think every AI student in our Universities is a self-serving, conniving, asshole?

That's a pretty close description (as the field has been sort of shunned at lots of those guys have chips on their shoulders), but GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK! If you've never met them, how would you know this?

The sad truth: anything even remotely that sophisticated is about 20 years off. So lets not start making predictions that far out, eh?

Also, go fuck a duck.

Office 2003 Feature

[taped2thedesk]

Clippy: "It looks like you're writing a unethical confidential internal company memo. Would you like help with that?"

I've filed a patent too.

[WalterDGeranios]

Look for my website soon. Here's a preview of the diagram of my method.

1(a,b,c,d) --> 2 --> 3(a,b)

1a) Keyboard input
1b) Microphone input
1c) Scanner input
1d) Mouse input

2) Solve NP-complete problems with some algorithm

3a) output to printer
3b) output to monitor

question

[SQLz]

Don't you have to actually HAVE a ethical AI before you can patent it? Should I just patent the software for a holodeck now?

Not much product potential

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a good thing there's plenty of prior art on vice, because an _unethical_ AI will sure sell better.

Re:You're the sexiest tomboy beanpole ar.. aaaaaaa

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently, it, is, not, a, requirement, for, smart, guys, to, use, proper, punctuation, or, grammar, though. Cocksucker.

insane!

[Anonymous Coward]

great, isn't AI encompassing everything human?

I hope this doesn't create a flood of patents for simple fuzzy logic based rules. I bet you that this guy will do nothing with this patent, and no one else will either. what an ass.

but luckily, the greatest barrier to ai is probably still hci and cpu, so by the time ai is useful enough to know your name, the patent will have expired and we can add ethics.

Data didn't get that stuff till like the last seasons. and then his bro stole it..

Dumbasses

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy hasn't invented /anything/. He's just waiting for someone to invent it so he can sue them.

It's a *patented* schizoid rant

[uncadonna]

Subject pretty much says it. This looks to me like a typical marginally schizophrenic overvalued taxonomy (a.k.a. "crackpot theory"). It's worthy of notice ONLY because it proves that a crackpot with a lawyer can patent his idee fixe .

This is a sorry comment on the patent system, but since as an actual methodology it is utterly meaningless, it is inconsequential in the theory or practice of AI or software engineering or anything else.

I have to wonder about the ethics of an attorney who patents an ethical system, though. That's sort of ironic.

Morality is not R.E.!

[hendrix69]

It seems to me that coding morality into machines is impossible. For a machine, acting morally would mean weighing the outcome of every possible course of action according to a given set of rules.
Every course of action can be described via a Turing machine, but evaluating the outcome of such TMs is not possible according to Rice's theorem. So morality is undecidable.
Furthermore, it should be possible to show that morality isn't even semi-decidable. This can be done using a mapping reduction of the Halt-Complement problem to Morality as follows:
Given input to the !Halt problem (a TM B and input X) we map it to a TM P which is connected to an electric chair that holds a nun. P runs a timer for 60 seconds and in parallel simluates B(X), when the 60 seconds are up it let's the juice run, unless B(X) halts in which case it stops the timer.

If B(X) doesn't halt -> the nun fries -> P is moral.
If B(X) halts -> the nun lives -> P is immoral. Q.E.D.

Re:Morality is not R.E.!

[BigBadBri]

That's just a fancy ducking stool, that is...

Re:Wait until the marketing department gets to it.

[dougayen]

I just did a survey of my local vending machines, and if rules one and two above are enforced, almost nothing except the bottled water could be sold. Everthing else is basically junk food.

--doug

well I don't care..

[Anonymous Coward]

My forthcoming flame-death motherfucker robot is completely non-infringing

Ultimate Guide?

[Bilbo]

Hey, I'm all for people preaching about Family Values and what-not, and I actually think they are important, but anything with the label, "The Ultimate Guide to Family Values" has got to be smoking some serious dope. Even among conservatives, there are differences of opinion on what exactly constitute "Family Values", so to make the claim of "Ultimate Truth" tells me this bloke doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

HAHAHAHAHA

[circletimessquare]

brilliant! ;-P

Total Gibberish

[Geckoman]

Aside from the fact that this seems to be a ridiculous patent, what is it really for? He didn't build a prototype. He didn't write any software. He's not even patenting a business process!

All he did was describe a system for behaving ethically based on some psychological theories. Does it sound like a good system? I suppose, but that's not the point. The point is that this is nothing.

"It enables a computer to reason and speak in an ethical fashion. Nobody has made an application like this.... The patent shows someone who has knowledge of the A.I. field how to make the invention."

Well, no kidding. Anyone with a knowledge of AI knows how we all want computers to act: We want them to act like really nice people. Determining how nice people act is the easy part! Getting computers to do that is freakin' hard! Maybe the reason nobody has done it yet is that it's an incredibly hard problem.

This is a patent acquired my someone who lacks a fundamental understanding of what the really difficult problems are in AI and computer science, that offers a very thorough solution to the easy problems that most researchers aren't terribly concerned about.

Should this patent have been granted? No. Will it ever make him any money? No, because by the time AI advances to the point where descriptors of ethical behavior at such a high level are needed, it will have expired.

Besides, it really is a very specific description. Creating your own categorical description of ethical behavior would be trivial if you've solved all the technical problems.

I'd better hurry up and submit my patent for my new computer language, Z++. It's very simple, with only a few keywords. Every program looks like this:

START:
DoWhatIWant;
END

Re: We just need to prgram it to know everything

[Anonymous Coward]

"The knowledge base for the matching procedure is the collective memory array for the MP-IE, representing the formal conceptual template for the entire complement of power pyramid definitions. The matching process knowledge base (hereafter abbreviated the MP-KB) takes the form of bulk memory storage, reflecting the enormous space required for programming the various parameters of the power pyramid definitions into memory storage. The basic unit of knowledge organization within the MP-KB is the conceptual frame (and sub-frame). Cybernetic theory defines a frame as a means for representing a concept. A separate frame is created for each basic component within a power pyramid definition; namely, noun, predicate, adjective, etc. Each (master) frame is further subdivided into numerous sub-frames specifying the varieties of words or phrases descriptive of the frame. For example, the nouns (captain, chairman, etc.) represent sub-frames of the basic frame denoting group authority. "
and later "The predicate matching procedure first identifies the main verb "reminisced." The "ed ending" rule within the knowledge base establishes that "reminisced" is in the past tense, further limiting the range of possibilities to only two of the personal ideals; i.e., glory and honor (which are given in power pyramid definitions exclusively from a past-directed perspective."

So, his "system" will require somebody to define the "meaning" and context of _every word_ in the English language, how it relates to _every other word_ and how it relates to the installed "ethical power pyramid".

Ridiculous

Another ridiculous element of this "work" is his desire to specify the organization of the multi-processor hardware and memory.

It remind me of 'ideas' my frat brothers would come up with after studying too much all week and then dropping acid.

PRETENTIOUSNESS

[xMonkey]

This is the operator for PRETENTIOUSNESS from this guys "invention." Geez... this is probably the stupidest patent ever granted.

PRETENTIOUSNESS

Previously, you (as my spiritual disciple) have flatteringly acted in a patronizing fashion towards me: overriding my (as SA) vain sense of conceit.

But now, I (as humanitarian authority) will conceitedly act in a pretentious fashion towards you: overruling your (as SD) patronizing treatment of me.

Oh, Great

[spoonboy42]

Now altruism, love, honesty, and virtue are all patent infringement.

This guy is a total wacko, people...

[JamieF]

Have you read this thing? This makes me think of the movies A Beautiful Mind and Dark City, where a raving lunatic covers his walls with all sorts of data and diagrams and schematics and stuff, that to him makes perfect sense... "I've almost figured it out, I'm so close toa breakthrough..." but to a sane person is just crazy talk written down and pasted to the wall.

I guess it's possible that his work makes sense to a duly trained professional but clearly the USPTO isn't qualified to judge that. I suspect that this is no different from a time machine patent that employs precise alignments of bottle caps and pop rocks to work.

This guy is a professional counselor with a MS in Biological Sciences and an MS in Counseling and yet he's coming up with detailed designs for ethical artificial intelligence systems. Have a look at this diagram from his site:
http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/fairhaven/Patent_fig1 .jpg
Yikes.

Ethical vs. Weird

[poot_rootbeer]

Is Ethical Al related to Weird Al in some way?

Ethical Al probably refuses to do parodies of popular songs because doing so would imply support for the RIAA's practices.

The part I don't understand...

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a patent be granted for something that has never been built, never been proven to work or never even been shown to do anything! For all we know, an implementation of this will result in a machine saying "bleep" everytime, crashing, going into permanent feedback loops or doing god knows what. Would this mean that this patent is essentially a blanket patent that covers anything some program does whose structure resembles the one of the patent? I can't believe this crap.

Re:Wait until the marketing department gets to it.

[Herkum01]

Customer: God that drink was awful, and I am starting to feel really weird...
Vending Machine: Oh, that is the heroine.
Customer: The what?!
Vending Machine: The heroine.
Customer: What the hell?
Vending Machine: Be sure to come back tomorrow before withdrawal sets in, I hear that is awful and can go on for days.
Customer:???
Vending Machine: Oh yeah, bring a roll of quarters, I am raising the price, have a nice day!

Re:Where is the Proof Of Practice Re:Who's this gu

[sm1979]

It doesn't seem to be more than a bit of bad psycho-babble quoting a lot of doubtful 60ies "psychology" books. He's even referring to some books on self-help psychology, that's probably the most dangerous thing you could do. Besides that, it seems to be some way of marketing his own book under
"Related projects".

However, there's not a single reference to any kind of computer linguistics or AI work at all. The German VERBMOBIL project comes to my mind. It was pretty much state of the art in computer linguistics, live translation of common language German - English - Japanese, although it was restricted to a special application domain, to keep the vocabulary small. All they did was translate, which only needs a very shallow understanding of a sentence's meaning. What this guy claims to do is actually respond in a meaningful way! Additionally, he just claims to make up some kind of huge dictionnary with obscure ethical terms and some kind of definition in a AI-wise completely outfashioned expert systems.

Well, surprise, one of the interesting findings in the VERBMOBIL project was, that humans actually make up words or at least redefine the meaning of words during an verbal interaction. How does he handle that?

As a last note, he has some funny opinions about 5th generation computing. In a revolutionary way, according to the usual unnamed experts, it will be made of logic circuits! No?! It can't be. That's incredible. Logic! I have to take a break now. I'm shocked.

Re:Where is the Proof Of Practice Re:Who's this gu

[sm1979]

Additionally, the most successful language analyzers in the VERBMOBIL project were based on pure statistics. All that fancy logical induction and deduction didn't work. The search trees to evaluate logically get huge very quickly. These approaches were always stopped by the timeout function :-)

Time to make some money

[mutewinter]

Is this guy going to sue Dr Laura?

I think he missed the prior art bit

[jmh_az]

After looking at the claims on this guy's web site it occurred to me that he probably should have spent a wee bit of time with something like The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (in four volumes), and Erik Mueller's "Daydreaming in Humans and Machines", an earlier version of which is available for download here, although I would recommend purchasing the hard-cover version. The first reference is a must-have collection of papers for anyone interested in where AI research has been and what's already been acheived, and Mueller's book absolutely knocked my socks off when I first read it. Another reference this guy obviously missed is Kosslyn and Koenig's "Wet Mind", which provides a very interesting, if somewhat speculative (I'm being nice here, OK?) blueprint for a cognitive system. And then of course there's Dan Dennet and his theories of cognition. And Pylyshyn, Stich, Foder, Minsky, etc., etc., etc..

The AI and cognitive science fields already have such a large body of published theories and experimental work that I think this guy has basically wasted his money getting himself a vanity patent, and demonstrated his own deep level of ignorance about the whole field in the process. The first time he tries to collect his millions of dollars he's going to discover what's lurking in a field of study with hordes of earnest researchers and a 50 year history.

So I'm not worried about him and his patent, it will blow away with the first little breeze of reality, but I am profoundly disturbed about a U.S. Patent Office which hands out BS like this to anyone with a filing fee and the right format for the paperwork. Now, that's the real travesty here.

Bad precedent

[pclminion]

Couldn't I get a slightly wider patent, namely a patent on an AI system that includes logic to safeguard against human injury? Given the current state of the patent office, could I possibly patent such a broad concept? "An algorithm which uses a series of computational instructions to give rise to internal states which are unconducive to human injury," or other similarly opaque language.

Then, in the future, when AI actually takes off, a law is passed requiring all AI devices to have this human safeguarding logic -- seems like a law people would probably want to pass. Since I got the patent on this way back before people understood the ramifications of allowing such a patent, I'm now the only person authorized to make AI systems.

Can this be possible?

Ethical AI or Artificial Ethic System?

[tsakov]

Wouldn't this be better represented by calling it an Artificial Ethics Simulator?

To include the phrase "Artificial Intelligence" is to convey the concept that this is a subset of a clearly define and working AI system.

Until you have a clearly defined and working AI then this title is nonsensical and the patent should be revoked.

The patent office is SOOOOOO far behind the times and in their own little world!

I have MANY patentable ideas but I am 'ethical' and will not patent until I have a working prototype.

This type of patent should be reviewed by a open panel of experts in the 'AI' and computer fields. The patent process cannot be allowed to continue this way or innovation will cease for the mainstream and only be available via an un-ethical 'blackmarket'.

Sig: Afraid for my children and my childrens children.... etc.

Excellent Patent

[cait56]

One of the patent attorneys for a former employer told me that the ideal patent is one that is totally incomprehensible to the reader until they have successfully infringed upon it.

After attempting to read this patent and determine what the actual algorithms being patented are, all I can say is that this may be an ideal patent.

Re:Wait until the marketing department gets to it.

[Nyarly]

Ahem:

Customer: Waiter! What's this heroine in my coffee!

Waiter: The backstroke, perhaps?

or...

Waiter: Keep yout voice down, or everyone will want to meet her!

or...

Waiter: That's not a heroine, sir. That's heroin. See you tomorrow.

About the patenting process?

[iion_tichy]

I'm not sure, but I think the patent office hasn't got the task to decide wether something actually makes sense. If somebody wants to patent something that doesn't really make sense or that simply doesn't work as described, they might still grant a patent, as long as it's new? The patent would probably be worthless, but the state made some money on it...

Asimov Had It Right

[RobK]

The 1940 Laws of Robotics

First Law:

A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law:

A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law:

A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

All the ethics a bot needs was codified in 1940 - PRIOR ART!

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/As im ov.html

Re:I unbeg the question...

[nickyj]

Ooo! Even better! Program it as an unethical robot.

freebies?

[flowerp]

the kind of vending machine that gives freebies
to the homeless?

Re:Wait until the marketing department gets to it.

[Fascist Christ]

1. Vending Machine shall never kill Vending Machine.

Conundrum

[HTH NE1]

And what does the Ethical AI have to say about software patents?

Re:Please help a Linux Newbie

[frekio]

Thanks for reposting the same comment that was in the freebsd thread and substituting linux for fbsd.

Either way it's bs, OBVIOUSLY
(don't feed the trolls guys).

Re:Please help a Linux Newbie

[frekio]

oh in case you're wondering here is the other comment.

Use ethical AI to clean body-mind-soul-spirit!

[watchful.babbler]

The site reads to me like a label from a Dr. Bronner's Peppermint Soap bottle (but, then, so do most New York Times articles these days, so maybe it's just me). There's certainly no connection to any established philosophical tradition that I'm aware of.

In any case, what to make of his plans to create a "Diagnostic Classification of the Emotions?" According to the site, the "DCE-I" "represents [each moral failing with] a 3-digit coding system in the vein of the DSM-IV and ICD-10 series." ("In the vein of" meaning "absolutely nothing like the clinical tradition that has held sway since DSM-III.") It makes things worse that he conflates all mental disorders into a single category -- evidently, to this ethicist, narcissistic personality disorder and disorganized schizophrenia belong in the same grouping.

It seems like this guy believes that ethics can be boiled down to a set of simple propositions that can be assessed in an ethical equivalent to the five-minute mini-mental state exam. The strangeness of that claim suggests that his patent, based on that assumption as it is, will have little use in practice.

Too bad

[t0ny]

Its too bad we cant work on a way to get ethical behavior put into people.

Wonderful!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it now:
An AI researcher: "I was going to create an ethical Artificial intelligence, but that was patented. So, to avoid infringing on the existing patent, I didn't include ethics. Now, my superintelligent AI is trying to eliminate the human race."
Feel good about patenting "ethical AI" now?

Accrual accounting

[Jetson]

"Yeah, I tried to get the accounting system to claim those contracts we haven't collected money for as income on our quarterly report but the accounting system wouldn't let me. Now my stock options are worthless and the board is going to fire me."

Two words for you: accrual accounting.

Accrual accounting is an acceptable (and in some cases legally required) accounting practise in which income and expenses become earnings/costs when the invoices are issued, not when they are paid. Under that system, any amounts due when the contracts are signed *should* have been included in income for that quarter.

And yes, your post was funny all the same....

Master Control Program?

[macshune]

From the guy's ethical AI patent: "...overseen by a master control unit-expert system..."

it's the MCP!


End of Line.

Who is this Ethical AL guy anyways?

[fname]

I kid you not, I've been reading headlines for these "Ethical AI" Stories for a few months now, and until this morning, I didn't realize that they referred to A.I., and not some really moral guy named Al.

Seriously.

The only perfectly ethical system I know about ...

[iramkumar]

* Always speaks the truth
* Is open to change if the truth is at a higher level
* Knows that the answer to the question of life is 42
I know its impossible much like perpetual motion. However I know I will feel like a fool once the "impossible" becomes "possible", and then I will be too rich that my denial will be widely accepted as the truth.

The new Vending Machine

[m_niessner]

Boy walks up to candy machine. Punches A5 for Reese's Peanut Butter Cups. Vending machine evalutes consumer, and responds: "I'm sorry fat boy, but I just don't feel right giving you that Reese's Peanut Butter Cup. Here is a pack of wheat thins instead"

simulating artificial intelligence

[StrawberryFrog]

What is the difference between "artificial intelligence" and "simulating artificial intelligence". It's like simulating addition. If you simulate adding 2 and 2, do you get a simulation of an answer equal to 4, or do you get 4?

Some things like the answer to a maths sum, the next move in a game of chess, and the response to a text question, the simulation *is* the real thing. So whoever wrote that is lacking a few clues.

Re:simulating artificial intelligence

[JamieF]

No, simulating artificial intelligence means that after 50 years this project will have a bunch of dead-ends and no working prototypes. :)

This patent is, in fact, a Good Thing

[FurryFeet]

and this is not the standard "this will help everyone see how flawed the system is". No, this is actually good.
Why? Because the technology to do what this man has patented is way in the future. Way, way in the future. I'm talking 30, maybe 50 years here.
And the patente will expire, safely, in 17 years. See where I'm going?
By the time scientists are actually capable of working on an ethical A.I., the concept will have safely and unarguably fallen into the public domain.
I don't think that's what this moron intended, but that's what's gonna happen.

I refuse to be patent-bound by this

[Morgaine]

To be honest this really disgusts me.

It disgusts me too, but for a slightly different reason.

As a systems designer with just too much background behind me in a multiplicity of fields including linguistics, semantics, cognition and AI, among many others, I refuse to be bound or in any way hindered or limited by this patent or any similar ones in this field.

Just because someone has the gall to put in a patent application on something doesn't mean that other people's life's work and thoughts suddenly become worthless or derivative or exploitable.

Good luck mister "inventor". But if you try to put a stopper or royalty on my own totally independent ideas here (even if they were to coincidentally turn out identical to yours) then please be ready for litigation based on published thoughts long predating yours. You weren't the first to come up with this, in fact you might have been the hundredth. But you were the first with the professional affrontary to try to stop further development of these ideas through the patent process. If you think that's praise, you've got the wrong end of the stick.

Patenting ideas is simply bad, full stop.

You fucking idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be wayside not "weigh site."
Any fucking moron who could make such a serious mistake must be a complete idiot.

You fucking chump.

Um, a patent on ethics?

[taxtropel]

Sorry, I know I'm no expert, but this idea raises certian questions w/ me and my friends.

But how can it be ethical or moral to patent well ethical AI.
The idea of a truly ethical AI implies that it is a free-willed Intelligent creation able to decren the difference between right and wrong and thusly able to act upon thoes decisions, in relation to the context of the situation.

To argue that there can be no such advance in AI is to argue that planes do not fly, so please do not reply w/ this common overused arguement.

To me the patent seems to contradict ethics in general.

no substance

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy has invented exactly jack shit.

This guy is pretty rigidly focused

[LionMage]

I checked out the web site describing this patent, and it seems the author is pretty fixated on natural language processing as a path to AI, even though anyone who's studied the field can tell you that language processing is only a fraction of what "real" AI is all about.

I quote:

The concept of artificial intelligence (AI) has been predicted in theory since virtually the dawning of the Computer Age. As its name implies, this term refers to the artificial simulation of language using a computer.

Um, what? So anything not associated with language has nothing to do with intelligence? I guess visual perception and pattern recognition must not count for much, just to list one thing I "thought" was a hallmark of intelligence.

KITT

[mrbrown1602]

Don't we already have this? I mean, the Knight Industries Two Thousand was programmed to save human life and be ethical and crap.... oh wait, that was a crappy 80s TV show.

At least he's honest

[Anonymous Coward]

"It enables a computer to reason and speak in an ethical fashion," LaMuth said. "Nobody has made an application like this."

Indeed not.

beasts of knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who haven't been paying attention... it is now time for the beasts of knowledge to finally rise.

Methinks it's about to get interesting...

What would his AI have to say

[qtp]

about patenting a vaguely described methodology without the intention of implementing it onself, but hoping that someday someone else would make you rich by doing all of the hard work.

Rebuttal to All the Naysayers by the Inventor

[PATENT OWNER]

I am the inventor of record for ethical AI and have had a blast reading all your opinions. I have laughed out-loud reading many of the other hysterical responses... I want to reassure everyone that this patent is the real deal. It is just that the formal patent format does not encourage laying-out all of the background supportive details. My reasons for patenting are to give this invention a fair chance to be widely implemented - for no major corporations are going to invest R&D in a public domain endeavor... The future is here now! John E. LaMuth

Doesn't matter about the patent....

[tqft]

it will have expired long before anyone can make a working implementation

Re:Wait until the marketing department gets to it.

[Herkum01]

Oops! I got your point! :)