What argument do you have for not supporting my research into AI?

My research into AI is aimed to reduce psychological suffering. It has nothing to do with human intelligence actual or perceived. It merely relates to the solving of problems that we know the solution to. It rests on no unproven technology. It in fact utilizes existing technology to collect it together to improve the quality of the deductions the system is capable of making. These deductions are aimed at prevent catastrophes and accidents that cause unnecessary psychological suffering. It is my understanding that this is what Jesus would want us to do, it in no way usurps the power of God to decide men's fates, but is instead mandated by our call to act justly and to treat each other with respect.

So, basically the only reason that no one assists the development of AI is two reasons, they have no interest or purpose in it, and secondly because of historical precident - no one ever has.

I think every person has an interest and a purpose in anything that offers a way to reduce psychological suffering of people. Furthermore, since AI has been so long neglected and even harmed by the actions of most people who have heard about it, it makes sense to constitute an effort to restore it so that it may succeed in its purpose.

As to historical precident - the main reason there are objections to AI are one, no one believes that it works because they are full of prejudices and are incapable of accepting or deviating from their position, and secondly because of the manner in which I advocated AI.

Now clearly the manner in which I advocated AI was the manner in which any person devoid of social sense would go about advocating a matter of supreme importance. I tried to say how important it was and people didn't listen to me on account of that. My blood boils and I have no idea what else I can do - this is really not fun at all.

To assist AI, one does not even need to touch a computer! By assisting me you will no doubt assist AI.

Is it really fair for me to ask for your help? I believe it is, and for this reason - there are more than one forms of capital that may be used in assistance. I possess the capital of a background in computer systems and solutions to problems of this sort, but I do not possess the capital of financial resources. Now, should everyone be required to earn financial capital as proof that their ideas work? If so, there would be no such thing as investment in the world, and we need to invest in our futures. I possess the capital of solutions, whereas some of you might possess financial and other capital. Please use it and don't be a squatter.

I have come to ask whether anyone would be so inclined as to assist us in getting this project started.

People ask me for solid proof that AI works. They said, why don't you make something like the internet, to prove to people that it works.

Of course if I ever alledged that I would make the internet I would be still further ridiculed. Ignoring this, just what exactly do you think a massive network of computers with petabytes of knowledge instant queryable and accessible throughout the world is? Is it a Quesenark? The internet is proof of AI. This is a classical problem of AI - that once we implement a system that replaces or even extends some human capability, it is contended that it is not really AI. For instance, with chess programs, people say, that is not AI - that's only Parallel Brute Force Minimax Search with Alpha Beta Pruning! Its not a fair world.

Let us behold without a doubt the definition of AI - that is - any time and any where a computer or computational device is employed to solve a problem previously performed by people, it is an instance of AI. That means unconditionally AI has existed since the 1940's.

If you don't believe me, won't you at least give me credit that this might explain why I am not so well understood. Here is the traditional definition of AI:

n 1: the branch of computer science that deal with writing computer programs that can solve problems creatively; "workers in AI hope to imitate or duplicate intelligence in computers and robots" [syn: {artificial intelligence},

I admit, I am wrong, by this definition I am not working on AI at all! There, you have it, I am wrong. This is what everyone in the world want's to hear, that Andrew Dougherty, by gosh, he was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, Dead wrong!

Now of course since I have said that, I can't be right about being wrong! That is your psychology! Its not AI, it's just parallel brute force minimax search with alphabetapruning.

No, the reason I am wrong is that I arrive at my definition of AI as the consequence of a long deduction into creating it. I alledge certain things are equivalent and without a background in CS the proof is not followable.

Most people are born with a mechanism that lets them accept these things. By lacking such a mechanism, by lacking an ability to leave the iron tracks of my thinking, I am forced to deal perpetually and at every moment with the dangers of the world and to contemplate their solution.

This has lead to an entirely different world view, one that is different in essence from those of people who have more normal reactions. In effect, it has promoted logic to be the sole inheritor of every dilemna, without any appeal to an emotional solution. Therefore the world to me is a problem in logic, and therefore we are able to conclude that all things are more Socratic in their essence. That we may refute possible definitions of things. And that, in general, as more experience comes in, this changes the qualitative nature of reality. Answers are never obtained immediately, which has the paradoxical effect of creating a rush to obtain answers immediately. Answers are really programs that map questions to solutions - that is, they take a question, in any form communicable, be it in English or Japanese or some mathematical language of some facial expression, and they produce an answer. Obviously there are English texts which are borderline between answers and statements, so this is by no means a complete function, that is, a total function, it is only a partial function, and a partial recursive function at that - BUT, there must be saying that says something to effect that, don't throw out job that was only 99% finished. You object to the possibility of anything being 100% complete and you reject any solution that isn't! Whose side are you on? Logic gives us that answer. You may well be an operative of the devil. I cannot disprove this.

When someone looks at what they can prove and what they can't, we have the following inference, I should react in such a way that regardless of the actual truth of any relevant proposition, my goals will be met. This entails, in the case of creating AI, operating in such a way that would guarantee the success of AI even if every other person, indeed even if I myself, were an agent of the devil.

Whereas other people would find this pedantic and rigid thinking, this is exactly the nature of every thought that guides my thinking, and the way I communicate this to others is under the label of Asperger's, which incidentally proves startlingly correct in every case.

To use a rather disgusting example, but only for the purposes of illustrating the accuracy of this thesis, the symptoms of Asperger's are a model, that is, a plausible interpretation, for virtually every difference that I have been so thoroughly gone over for throughout my life. I have a flat facial affect, I am not very good at certain muscular programming - even down to the fact that I have difficulty in the lavatory. That to me was the last fact, the final guarantee. But there were several before. I have insulted several people by interchanging 1st person pronouns for 2nd and 3rd person pronouns. Example: "I am above the military just like you're below it". Someone told me I was above the military, and I meant to say "I am above the military just like I am below it." meaning that I was merely different and didn't consider myself better or worse, merely different. But of course, the nature of my condition is that I commit social offense, but there is even a specific neurological inability to correctly use 1st, 2nd and 3rd pronouns.

I guarantee you, for every listed symptom I can provide three examples in which people were startled because of the presence of this symptom.

It just about covers everything.

Now, does it really make sense to impose draconian punishments, to apply excessive calumnies, to ridicule and deprive a person because they don't fit your mold of what a person ought to be, this being due to the fact that they were born quite different. How many children smile when they are baptised? I was born smiling - it is a problem, it is my permanent condition. I cannot hide my emotions nor the fact that I have no negative emotions (no positive one's either) - only anger towards unresolved problems that destroy people, and otherwise a calm happiness. I don't think this makes me less of a person. I think if people were willing to acknowledge that there has been a fundamental miscommunication, and further acknowledge that this means that we ought to REMEDY the situation, then we will have to go about REMEDYING the situation.

First of all, there are still people who want me to owe up to the problems that have been caused as a result of my differences, they want me to face punishment for these and my defiant self-righteousness.

It is even worse that this is a syndrome that is not easily detectable. It is at this point certain undeniable. But no one is willing to relook the past and release that we have miscommunicated. Everyone is hurt, and wants to be repayed out of the capital of my self-righteousness, the part about me that knows that I am right in what I say. But is this really fair, or isn't this a bit like the customer at a hardware store who keeps coming back because their vacuum is a perpetual wreck, and keeps demanding that it be fixed free of charge. I am afraid that I have no choice but to ignore such a scam. It is not my problem that the vacuum is broken.

The situation is even worse as the whole point of AI is to solve problems that affect my communication. I say, openly, I am going to use computers to express myself better, and I get attacked for this.

Often the attacks seem aimed more at me than at what I say, they are simple attacks of the form: find out whatever Andy wants and attack that. That is what my Dad has done and of course under such situations, such one sided situations in which I was constantly vulnerable, in the good work that I had accomplished was being destroyed, so that I was becoming wasted, hopelessly warped and wasted because my talents were unpopular and failures unbounded. Under such circumstances I had to leave, and had to reduce that torture down to nothing.

Immediately thereafter I am accused of further disturbing the peace (as if with Dad there ever was such a thing) and furthering psychological suffering. I guarantee you that when attack AI which is designed to reduce psychological suffering, you by definition will have to increase it. People allege that I should give up AI. This is again part of this whole victemology, they want me to give it up to satisfy their hurt egos, they want me to fail. The cause of this of course would be that the world would come to not have this incredibly useful system, that many problems that I was put here on this earth to resolve would remain forever unsolved and would continue to plague and destroy and limit every goal and every desire of every person for all future time. I have special circumstances, every does, that makes them better suited to solve certain problems. AI is damned up by a communication barrier, and the waters are receding. So I cannot be blamed for losing my sanity along with the rest of the world. I cannot provide that service I am afraid, that is logic, if it cannot be done it cannot be done, and under such attack and such isolation and (god damn it I cannot even remember the phrase, right here I might have succeeded in adding a little more conviction to the argument). Well, anytime you have an exchange, with it not quite being just, and then the party which has benefitted more of course wants to sit tight. They have to realize that their beliefs are predicated on a mistaken interpretation of my motivations and that as I was really not to blame, their punishments and sanctions were unjust, just as one does not punish a retard for his retardation, you ought to punish what is to blame, which is to say you ought to pusish our ignorance, which is to say that we should study, and the limit of study is AI, at least for me. There comes a point in study where the actual information theoretical, computational and psychological limitations that you are studying affect your ability to study - this is actually metamathematics. If you apply information theoretic computation complexity to metamathematics, you get the theory of Algorithmic Information Theory, which is synonymous with AI.

Here is the most efficient explanation of what motivates me to collect software.

http://www.cs.umaine.edu/~chaitin/acm74.pdf

"In a word, we propose that there may be theoretical justification for regarding number theory somewhat more like a dynamicempirical science than a closed static body of theory." This illustrates why I think we are destined to catastrophy. I think our logic, which may be formalized in number theory, winds up failing with probability 1.

adaptation exaptation excptation