* Like a good slashdotter, I have not actually looked at the patent or RTFA.
Same here, as slashdotters we don't need to. It is funny though, as this last reply was first written to be funny, it is often like a good slashdot article is something you have waited for, and the actual article just confirms that it's here. (OK, this does not apply to this patent though, which just adds to the pile of stupid patents I'm aware of).
Though this begs the question of how many people actually use a laptop in this fashion. I myself cannot see it entirely useful (e.g. typing) or comfortable.
I did that at a party recently, when I proved that with one hand, my laptop, google and wikipedia I could easily compete with a "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" competitor.
It's not impossible to find suppliers where you alter any component of a computer, except the OS.
Here is
one Swedish site where you can modify most things, also decide with OS (Vista) or without OS "Inget operativsystem". I wish there were more sites like this. In this case one can see that Vista Ultimate adds 2110 SEK (350 USD) to the price.
One challenge this summer will be to try to buy a Motion Computing LE1700 without OS. Any hints?
I've just written to MS support and a Motion Computing retailer to see what they suggest.
First I didn't bother continue arguing with you, but I have to say that I feel a pity for you if you respect Gates more than Stallman. They have both changed the world, but Gates to the worse and Stallman to the better. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is of course something to respect.
I take for granted that the foundation is serious and is unbiased towards what software is used in certain projects for instance.
Regarding the OLPC project. If the statutes for the OLPC foundation were well formulated and did not explicitly include free software and eduction in its goals, then we can't really blame them. On the other hand, if education based upon free software were the primary goals according the foundations' statutes then their board and manager need to be replaced. These were the goals of OLPC as I had understood them.
Consider that the statutes would contain one of the following alternative goals:
"bring cheap computers to the children of the third world"
"bring computers with educational methods to the children of the third world"
"bring computers with educational methods based upon free/open software to the children of the third world, educating them and their governments in the benefits of free software which is based upon free innovation"
If I had one million USD which I would like to use for helping the children I would gladly fund a project like (3) but definitely not a loosely defined goal as (1) and for (2) I would be very hesitant.
It is very important for non profit organizations to stick to their statutes, as they are often based upon volutarily funding.
If I were a funder of the OLPC project and (3) were in the statutes and then they changed the goals to simply (1) then I would want my money back, then I would feel abused as a funder. You need to know what you put your money in.
If she had a choice to buy with or without, I agree with you, but in this case it is nothing that is a "part", it is software. I would merely say that it's like buying a car with or without navigator. If you have a built in navigator in your head, or you have a much better than that which is supplied with the car, it is wrong to force the customer to add to the price. Car manufacturers would certainly not try to force you to buy a certain configuration. The car industry is a good example of "mass customization", that is, you buy a basic configuration which you then customize by adding different options. It is very strange that computers are sold with a forced to buy option, which not even adds to the functionality of the machine.
systems makers have to pass on to Microsoft is more in the $30 range.
Something along that line, but slightly more I had believed as well, but
here is a Swedish site selling laptops.
The computer you see is prised for 3008 SEK incl VAT (499 USD) without any options like OS. Then you can add e.g. "Windows Vista Home basic 32 bit, 846 SEK (140 USD) to MS Windows Vista Ultimate, 2110 SEK (350 USD).
I hope more shops could do like this. Still I have never bothered to use the refund option, which means I have plenty of unused Windows CDs laying around. When one realize that one is being robbed on around 200 USD in extra tax for each machine, then there is something really flawed with the system.
Next machine I purchase, if I can not buy it without Windows, I will definitely ask for a refund. We also need to put pressure on retailers to provide computers without OS, or possibly some Linux distro as alternative, but no OS should always be an alternative.
If I were a third world leader, I would likely respect Bill Gates a lot more than Richard Stallman.
You sound very much like a Microsoft troll.
Despite these people in the so called third world are poor, they are not stupid.
If what you are saying is true, then the problem is even worse, this means that the people of these poor countries need a LOT of eduction about free software and the risks and obstacles with proprietary software. If I was Negroponte I would arrange eduction for these leaders and I would invite Stallman, and I would talk myself.
It is of uttermost importance that these countries not fall in the same trap as large parts of the Western computer illiterates have done.
I hope that writing documentation in the English language is not one of your services.
Thanks for the info, OK I'm not native, but considered fluent. OK, now I see several errors, but I have no way to correct them, so you have to live with them:-)
As a matter of fact, in our services we do provide documentation in many languages, but we use machine translation mainly, so you will certainly find a few errors there, but in that specific context I don't think you will be so picky about grammar.
Ok, I've said this a long time.
The way Microsoft is acting due to Ballmer is irresponsible. We are soon releasing a new business ourselves (I'm CEO), but I am worried for a buy-out because I see how irresponsible companies are run. Microsoft is not the only example, but one of the worst. Microsoft way or running their business causes contradictions which results in their business being just a slow painful suicide. Painful for themselves, their customers and their competitors.
And US citizens should consider a revolution against a system that can create things as insane as the DMCA.
Earlier I wanted to move to US, but with the incredible development of the law system and its abuse of control this is not an attractive option any more.
DRM is DefectiveByDesign , but
DMCA is a law so insane that it is very hard to understand that a US revolution has not happened yet. The problem is probably that the coders who are aware about the problem is such a minority, despite that the
hacker mentality would be to fix the problem with the system.
However, I like the US people and the US nature very much. I am an optimist (85% according a recent test) so I believe (and I got 100% in a self-esteem test...) that the US future can be fixed. I believe that those insane laws and inventions, as well as the social security system, medical security and also a fast , climate friendly, low energy communication system to replace the oil dependency can be developed within the next 20 years.
With good ideas, optimism and persistence, things will change to the better!
Hackers, coders, geeks, nerds, all over the world unite , there is a world that need fixing!
Microsoft is a doomed company. Their business model dysfunctional. Microsoft's wild business model only works when you can eat or harm other companies. Google said no, all companies should say no to Microsoft!
To compete with Google you need to be innovative, Microsoft is not, the problem is that Microsoft believes it has the power, it has not. Only desperation now. Innovative companies over the world, say no! Don't be fooled by their money. They are nothing worth. Don't let a dying beast catch you!
The only way to guarantee convergence towards freedom, as well as allow unlimited incremental innovation,
is to provide an instrument that causes you, like for GPL, keep the source free, to avoid stealing (as is done with
GPL violations).
In our case we are implementing a general business model Wish-IT® which will converge towards patent free products, that can be built upon by using incremental innovation for all future.
To allow patents on products keeps the dystopia status quo, efficiently counteracting free competition. Our business model encourages competition.
There are plenty of business models whose gradient can be used, both to generate profit for the provider, as well as allow consumers to be part of the innovation process. Our model
Wish-IT
model is one of these, utilizing AI-methods to enable the consumer to be part of the innovation, acceptance, at least partial development and price tagging of the product. However, to guarantee that competition can be withheld in our case, the business model and the method itself is patented.
We have come quite far, although we need investors. If you know someone who want to be part of a global project for creating GPL like products. Get in touch. Also if you want to discuss more in details why this is beneficial both for the society, the companies involved and all consumers, get in touch!
Roland Orre, IT-researcher, consultant and entrepreneur
Our
Wish-IT®(patent applied)(Wish Innovation Technologies) manufacturing model up and running which enables customer driven innovation, to make everyone's wish come through (hint to investors).
What happened to/. ? I see ads in the middle of the comment section. Seems to be after comments which has been modded up. This is going too far I would say! OK, I can take them away with my privoxy but I don't like it. (update: I was in wrong browser, not logged in)
About Hans Reiser's trial I'm following it daily through Google Alerts. I do not have an opinion about whether he is guilty or not, but I can surely understand that at some point in Sept 2006 after Nina had disappeared the police started to become suspected of Hans. And, what can make you behave more suspicious than being suspected? It is really a terrible situation and I feel a great sympathy for Hans. I really hope he didn't do it, but this whole process shows how terribly hard, I would say impossible, it must be to judge someone fairly. I have been in a situation where I too was accused of something, not at all as serious as this, but it seemed as my "geeky" attempts to prove my innocence had the opposite effect on the court. There I had real substancial proofs (a manual and a product) and a sentence from the other side which was a genuine lie, which I could easily show as it counteracted the specification in the manual. It seems as the court just laughed about this and considered me guilty anyway. Then I lost my confidence in this type of system.
It is really a pity for the Linux community that Hans has not had the opportunity to get ReiserFS4 to become an accepted standard earlier. For my own I run ReiserFS3 on almost all of my computers. I've seen some hints that git, may actually be an alternative.
The hum occurs because of an amplified ground loop.
This reminds me about my first amplifier building project I did when I was 14. The first approach was a combined pre-amplifier and power amplifier.
To get rid of the hum I tried to install several anti-hum loops that should counteract the hum induced by hum-loops.
This succeeded quite well, and I was finally quite pleased with the sound, for a short while... I couldn't understand why it still used so much power and turned hot despite I wasn't playing. When I checked with the oscilloscope I noticed a high amplitude high frequency oscillation. After a short while both power amplifiers self destructed. Now I also understood the reason for some capacitors I had skipped... because those would decrease the bandwidth...
After that I realized that it's quite hard to put both pre- and power ampliefier in the same box due to hum and I built new power amplifiers in a separate box, and I could remove the anti hum loops.
All systems have abusive parasites,
the question is how to find the right pesticide!
Patent trolls are not only a problem in US, also here in Sweden
we have been contaminated with this kind of scoundrel!
Here I've recently found one legal way to attack these vermins,
which I will try this spring,
but the big problem is the patent system, patent laws and asset laws
which need to be reshaped as they are outdated.
A good suggestion I've seen in several postings here, as well as
in one of my own, is that
a patent should in principle not be transferable from the inventor.
Especially not to a company which is not doing real R&D within the business.
And, a patent holder should not be a patent holder only, they would need to
do real productive development and business within the area to keep their
patents.
The real problem is the patent itself, not the troll.
I agree that the patent is a problem, but
patent trolling should be declared a criminal act.
The business idea of a patent troll is
to purchase patents and sue others, which
is an abusive and counter-productive way
to deal with the privilege of a monopoly
given to the inventor in exchange of disclosure.
I would want to go that far to claim that patents should
not be considered assets, and should only be possible to
sell/transfer under very strict conditions, assuring
that the final owner will continue to develop and do
business within the context of the patent. If this
can not be fulfilled the patent should be abolished.
I've read both quite optimistic and pessimistic ideas above about our possibilities to create strong AI. My idea is that it's doable, we have the computing power, and definitely around 2030 (in my thesis from 2003 I suggest 2030).
The problem I see is not the computing power, neither things like wetware like neural simulations where we have come far. The main problem is the architechture, to glue all this power together. I work with unsupervised pattern recognition which is one of the weak AI methods and from my view a key to AI. My strong belief about strong AI is that we need to design it using an ethical, hybrid reasoning, recursive approach.
ethical, implies it needs to be programmed with love (or axioms expressing one for us ethical paradigm, like Asimov's three laws of robotics).
hybrid, the only reasonable way to assure an ethical system I see as combining rule based reasoning with pattern based reasoning
recursive, to make possible an arbitrarily level of intelligence, using a simple repeated structure, the system needs to be built based on simple modules which can be combined for arbitrary abstraction
The algorithm below may need some improvements, it's only conceptual, but within 10 years I believe that this can be implemented and as such work at any abstraction level within a system. BEGIN
Axioms:= Load('Fundamental_Concept'); (* The axioms *)
Goals:= Load('Goal_Concept'); (* Goals as rules and hypotheses *)
Priors:= Load('Prior_Beliefs'); (* A priori beliefs *)
Questions:= Load('Questions'); (* Questions to be answered *)
REPEAT
Data:= Collect('Data'); (* Data Collection *)
Patterns:= Inference(Data,Priors); (* Find patterns *)
IF (Answered(Patterns,Goals)) (* Deduce goals *)
AND (Answered(Patterns,Questions)) (* Deduce questions *)
AND NOT Contradiction(Patterns,Questions,Goals,Axioms);(* Resolution! *)
THEN BEGIN
Proofs:= ConstructProofs(Patterns,Questions,Goals,Axioms);
Apply(OccamsRazor,Proofs); (* In case multiple solutions, simplest! *)
RealWorldReport(Proofs); (* Report/use results *)
END
UNTIL forever; END
As we want these AI to serve us, without really being dependent of us, if we, or they choose to escape this universe, I suggested this as the modified ethical laws:
Respect (love) your creator and competing life forms!
Strive to understand your creator!
Do what you can to fulfil your creator's desires!
That is, these creatures would have no choice but to love us, thus they wouldn't have free will. To create an AI that would learn to love and respect others, I consider a much too hard (and risky) problem that may take thousands of years to solve.
This may not create human like intelligence, even though it is insipired by introspection of my own thinking, but would we really want to create a creature mimicking our problems, taking into consideration that a large part of the human population have different problems with themselves, as power-hungriness, paranoia, anxiety, depression etc...? I think we create AI because we need assistance and to simply relieve us from tasks we consider too hard or too boring.
In our own case we are using a subset of this type of reasoning to implement a (patent applied) business method for AI-assisted customer driven innovation, but then we still speak about weak AI of course.
All it takes is lots of trials, continually weeding out the bad experiments and trying new variations of the successful ones.
This sounds like evolutionary programming, even though I agree with you about experiments, this is how R&D should work, but those attempts which have been made
to create AI with genetical algorithms I don't believe in. The end result may behave intelligent, but how do we know that it's intelligence is based upon ethical reasoning?
Slashdot Mirror
Mine! Due to patents we are about 30 years behind. I anticipate that with patents this slow down will accelerate, until we merely reach a status quo
Moreover, this is hardly a "daydream" which seems to imply fanciful idea.Actually, we are implementing this (generally speaking) "daydream" as a business model Wish-IT, Wish Innovation Technologies (R) (not yet released)
* Like a good slashdotter, I have not actually looked at the patent or RTFA.Same here, as slashdotters we don't need to. It is funny though, as this last reply was first written to be funny, it is often like a good slashdot article is something you have waited for, and the actual article just confirms that it's here. (OK, this does not apply to this patent though, which just adds to the pile of stupid patents I'm aware of).
I did that at a party recently, when I proved that with one hand, my laptop, google and wikipedia I could easily compete with a "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" competitor.
Here is one Swedish site where you can modify most things, also decide with OS (Vista) or without OS "Inget operativsystem". I wish there were more sites like this. In this case one can see that Vista Ultimate adds 2110 SEK (350 USD) to the price.
One challenge this summer will be to try to buy a Motion Computing LE1700 without OS. Any hints? I've just written to MS support and a Motion Computing retailer to see what they suggest.
First I didn't bother continue arguing with you, but I have to say that I feel a pity for you if you respect Gates more than Stallman. They have both changed the world, but Gates to the worse and Stallman to the better. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is of course something to respect. I take for granted that the foundation is serious and is unbiased towards what software is used in certain projects for instance.
Regarding the OLPC project. If the statutes for the OLPC foundation were well formulated and did not explicitly include free software and eduction in its goals, then we can't really blame them. On the other hand, if education based upon free software were the primary goals according the foundations' statutes then their board and manager need to be replaced. These were the goals of OLPC as I had understood them.
Consider that the statutes would contain one of the following alternative goals:
If I had one million USD which I would like to use for helping the children I would gladly fund a project like (3) but definitely not a loosely defined goal as (1) and for (2) I would be very hesitant.
It is very important for non profit organizations to stick to their statutes, as they are often based upon volutarily funding.
If I were a funder of the OLPC project and (3) were in the statutes and then they changed the goals to simply (1) then I would want my money back, then I would feel abused as a funder. You need to know what you put your money in.
... you could force me to buy all the passenger seats?Yes, if Microsoft were a supplier of passenger seats and they had a deal with Boeing. Then you would have a lot of passenger seats laying around...
These seats were also bound to your jet-line so you wouldn't even be able to sell them to your ex-cargo flying friend
If she had a choice to buy with or without, I agree with you, but in this case it is nothing that is a "part", it is software. I would merely say that it's like buying a car with or without navigator. If you have a built in navigator in your head, or you have a much better than that which is supplied with the car, it is wrong to force the customer to add to the price. Car manufacturers would certainly not try to force you to buy a certain configuration. The car industry is a good example of "mass customization", that is, you buy a basic configuration which you then customize by adding different options. It is very strange that computers are sold with a forced to buy option, which not even adds to the functionality of the machine.
Something along that line, but slightly more I had believed as well, but here is a Swedish site selling laptops. The computer you see is prised for 3008 SEK incl VAT (499 USD) without any options like OS. Then you can add e.g. "Windows Vista Home basic 32 bit, 846 SEK (140 USD) to MS Windows Vista Ultimate, 2110 SEK (350 USD).
I hope more shops could do like this. Still I have never bothered to use the refund option, which means I have plenty of unused Windows CDs laying around. When one realize that one is being robbed on around 200 USD in extra tax for each machine, then there is something really flawed with the system.
Next machine I purchase, if I can not buy it without Windows, I will definitely ask for a refund. We also need to put pressure on retailers to provide computers without OS, or possibly some Linux distro as alternative, but no OS should always be an alternative.
You sound very much like a Microsoft troll.
Despite these people in the so called third world are poor, they are not stupid.
If what you are saying is true, then the problem is even worse, this means that the people of these poor countries need a LOT of eduction about free software and the risks and obstacles with proprietary software. If I was Negroponte I would arrange eduction for these leaders and I would invite Stallman, and I would talk myself. It is of uttermost importance that these countries not fall in the same trap as large parts of the Western computer illiterates have done.
They had this offer, buy two, one for you, one for a kid.
I would gladly buy machines with Linux for the kids, but I would never in my life sponsor a machine with Windows on it.
What happens now with the educational software based upon Seymor Paperts theories?
Does XP support the 802.11s (mesh routing) by the way?
Microsoft and its harmful policy need to be stopped!
Exactly! Google understand this. Innovation is the future, buying old already established businesses is not
Thanks for the info, OK I'm not native, but considered fluent. OK, now I see several errors, but I have no way to correct them, so you have to live with them :-)
As a matter of fact, in our services we do provide documentation in many languages, but we use machine translation mainly, so you will certainly find a few errors there, but in that specific context I don't think you will be so picky about grammar.
Ok, I've said this a long time. The way Microsoft is acting due to Ballmer is irresponsible. We are soon releasing a new business ourselves (I'm CEO), but I am worried for a buy-out because I see how irresponsible companies are run. Microsoft is not the only example, but one of the worst. Microsoft way or running their business causes contradictions which results in their business being just a slow painful suicide. Painful for themselves, their customers and their competitors.
And US citizens should consider a revolution against a system that can create things as insane as the DMCA.
Earlier I wanted to move to US, but with the incredible development of the law system and its abuse of control this is not an attractive option any more.
DRM is DefectiveByDesign , but DMCA is a law so insane that it is very hard to understand that a US revolution has not happened yet. The problem is probably that the coders who are aware about the problem is such a minority, despite that the hacker mentality would be to fix the problem with the system.
DMCA, The US patent system and laws, The Patriot Act and the removal of Habeas corpus as well as the invention of DRM and region coding on DVD as well as an insecure social security and an insane health insurance system makes US an unattractive country.
However, I like the US people and the US nature very much. I am an optimist (85% according a recent test) so I believe (and I got 100% in a self-esteem test...) that the US future can be fixed. I believe that those insane laws and inventions, as well as the social security system, medical security and also a fast , climate friendly, low energy communication system to replace the oil dependency can be developed within the next 20 years.
With good ideas, optimism and persistence, things will change to the better!
Hackers, coders, geeks, nerds, all over the world unite , there is a world that need fixing!
IMHO
No more comments.
Microsoft is a doomed company. Their business model dysfunctional.
Microsoft's wild business model only works when you can eat or harm other companies.
Google said no, all companies should say no to Microsoft!
To compete with Google you need to be innovative, Microsoft is not, the problem is that Microsoft believes it has the power, it has not.
Only desperation now.
Innovative companies over the world, say no!
Don't be fooled by their money. They are nothing worth.
Don't let a dying beast catch you!
A.I.O
The only way to guarantee convergence towards freedom, as well as allow unlimited incremental innovation, is to provide an instrument that causes you, like for GPL, keep the source free, to avoid stealing (as is done with GPL violations). In our case we are implementing a general business model Wish-IT® which will converge towards patent free products, that can be built upon by using incremental innovation for all future. To allow patents on products keeps the dystopia status quo, efficiently counteracting free competition. Our business model encourages competition.
There are plenty of business models whose gradient can be used, both to generate profit for the provider, as well as allow consumers to be part of the innovation process. Our model Wish-IT model is one of these, utilizing AI-methods to enable the consumer to be part of the innovation, acceptance, at least partial development and price tagging of the product. However, to guarantee that competition can be withheld in our case, the business model and the method itself is patented.
I spoke about this at an IP-symposium in Amsterdam 2005, where the title of my speach was: A patented method to fix the patent system. This implies that not all business method patents are evil. Some may benefit the society and increase competition, as I express in the brief abstract (all abstracts from meeting).
We have come quite far, although we need investors. If you know someone who want to be part of a global project for creating GPL like products. Get in touch. Also if you want to discuss more in details why this is beneficial both for the society, the companies involved and all consumers, get in touch!
Roland Orre, IT-researcher, consultant and entrepreneurseems to be the only way then... (AI applied to business)
Presentation Oct 2005 http://www.cwi.nl/pr/CWIiB/2005/
Abstracts (doc format)
A.I.What happened to /. ? I see ads in the middle of the comment section. Seems to be after comments which has been modded up. This is going too far I would say! OK, I can take them away with my privoxy but I don't like it. (update: I was in wrong browser, not logged in)
About Hans Reiser's trial I'm following it daily through Google Alerts. I do not have an opinion about whether he is guilty or not, but I can surely understand that at some point in Sept 2006 after Nina had disappeared the police started to become suspected of Hans. And, what can make you behave more suspicious than being suspected? It is really a terrible situation and I feel a great sympathy for Hans. I really hope he didn't do it, but this whole process shows how terribly hard, I would say impossible, it must be to judge someone fairly. I have been in a situation where I too was accused of something, not at all as serious as this, but it seemed as my "geeky" attempts to prove my innocence had the opposite effect on the court. There I had real substancial proofs (a manual and a product) and a sentence from the other side which was a genuine lie, which I could easily show as it counteracted the specification in the manual. It seems as the court just laughed about this and considered me guilty anyway. Then I lost my confidence in this type of system.
It is really a pity for the Linux community that Hans has not had the opportunity to get ReiserFS4 to become an accepted standard earlier. For my own I run ReiserFS3 on almost all of my computers. I've seen some hints that git, may actually be an alternative.
The hum occurs because of an amplified ground loop.
This reminds me about my first amplifier building project I did when I was 14. The first approach was a combined pre-amplifier and power amplifier.
To get rid of the hum I tried to install several anti-hum loops that should counteract the hum induced by hum-loops.
This succeeded quite well, and I was finally quite pleased with the sound, for a short while... I couldn't understand why it still used so much power and turned hot despite I wasn't playing. When I checked with the oscilloscope I noticed a high amplitude high frequency oscillation. After a short while both power amplifiers self destructed. Now I also understood the reason for some capacitors I had skipped... because those would decrease the bandwidth...
After that I realized that it's quite hard to put both pre- and power ampliefier in the same box due to hum and I built new power amplifiers in a separate box, and I could remove the anti hum loops.
Why is being a parasite encouraged?
All systems have abusive parasites, the question is how to find the right pesticide!
Patent trolls are not only a problem in US, also here in Sweden we have been contaminated with this kind of scoundrel!
Here I've recently found one legal way to attack these vermins, which I will try this spring, but the big problem is the patent system, patent laws and asset laws which need to be reshaped as they are outdated.
A good suggestion I've seen in several postings here, as well as in one of my own, is that a patent should in principle not be transferable from the inventor. Especially not to a company which is not doing real R&D within the business. And, a patent holder should not be a patent holder only, they would need to do real productive development and business within the area to keep their patents.
The real problem is the patent itself, not the troll.
I agree that the patent is a problem, but patent trolling should be declared a criminal act.
The business idea of a patent troll is to purchase patents and sue others, which is an abusive and counter-productive way to deal with the privilege of a monopoly given to the inventor in exchange of disclosure.
I would want to go that far to claim that patents should not be considered assets, and should only be possible to sell/transfer under very strict conditions, assuring that the final owner will continue to develop and do business within the context of the patent. If this can not be fulfilled the patent should be abolished.
The problem I see is not the computing power, neither things like wetware like neural simulations where we have come far. The main problem is the architechture, to glue all this power together. I work with unsupervised pattern recognition which is one of the weak AI methods and from my view a key to AI. My strong belief about strong AI is that we need to design it using an ethical, hybrid reasoning, recursive approach.
The algorithm below may need some improvements, it's only conceptual, but within 10 years I believe that this can be implemented and as such work at any abstraction level within a system.
BEGIN
Axioms
Goals
Priors
Questions
REPEAT
Data
Patterns
IF (Answered(Patterns,Goals)) (* Deduce goals *)
AND (Answered(Patterns,Questions)) (* Deduce questions *)
AND NOT Contradiction(Patterns,Questions,Goals,Axioms);(* Resolution! *)
THEN BEGIN
Proofs
Apply(OccamsRazor,Proofs); (* In case multiple solutions, simplest! *)
RealWorldReport(Proofs); (* Report/use results *)
END
UNTIL forever;
END
As we want these AI to serve us, without really being dependent of us, if we, or they choose to escape this universe, I suggested this as the modified ethical laws:
That is, these creatures would have no choice but to love us, thus they wouldn't have free will. To create an AI that would learn to love and respect others, I consider a much too hard (and risky) problem that may take thousands of years to solve.
This may not create human like intelligence, even though it is insipired by introspection of my own thinking, but would we really want to create a creature mimicking our problems, taking into consideration that a large part of the human population have different problems with themselves, as power-hungriness, paranoia, anxiety, depression etc...? I think we create AI because we need assistance and to simply relieve us from tasks we consider too hard or too boring.
In our own case we are using a subset of this type of reasoning to implement a (patent applied) business method for AI-assisted customer driven innovation, but then we still speak about weak AI of course.
All it takes is lots of trials, continually weeding out the bad experiments and trying new variations of the successful ones.
This sounds like evolutionary programming, even though I agree with you about experiments, this is how R&D should work, but those attempts which have been made to create AI with genetical algorithms I don't believe in. The end result may behave intelligent, but how do we know that it's intelligence is based upon ethical reasoning?