Here I attempt to outline the motivation for our programme of software conglomeration.

Let us give a rough outline of the logic behind this decision.

First is that one must have a vision, that is an understanding of a goal, such as artificial intelligence.

In my case, I could clearly see situations, usually social, in which I could imagine a computer performing a very complex set of tasks to arrive at some socially productive answers.

Unlike people untrained in computers and logic, I could not specifically disprove that a computer could do this. Besides, the risk of failure to achieve this goal is very large. <<<opportunity cost>>>

So I began to try to create a system. Like many who first start out, I fell into basic traps. I thought that I could write metaprograms, programs that wrote other programs which were more capable than themselves. Of course this ignores fundamental computer science concepts. It is based off practical work with computers, not theoretical. Of course, the lisp language is specifically crafted for this kind of metaprogramming, and it is a very basic possibility for automata to rewrite themselves, so like most beginner AI ideas they are hardly novel. So the idea is actually quite good, but it is not complete, it is only a fragment. It is necessary, but not sufficient.

In fact, most beginner AI ideas sound quite fuuny to people who know what has been developed. A beginner AI researcher will come along and say - we can have programs that map out all the words that people use and make a meaning for it (a dictionary?). Or maybe a more advanced suggestion - we could have mysql databases of available software - with all the dependencies recorded (apt-get?). So it is really quite funny listening to someone say basically - we could have round things that we could roll around on, as if the idea were new.

There are many other basic traps that I fell into. Another interesting one involved trying to model systems from data. I thought that I could have a system that observed interactions and "abducted" models of them. Well, this is quite true and there are many good uses of this, what is called model-checking (although model checking usually works from specifications and not observations). But ultimately, what was most damaging was that I had completely ignored the issue of what I would make my models out of. I thought programs, and this is fine, but really what is necessary is the notion of an object language to be learned. Of course, since these ideas are not well defined, there are many related concepts which are categorized by them. It covers quite a broad range.

So, the high point of my research came when I studied existing research extensively, which I had previously tried not to do for fear of confirmation bias. I am happy to say that I do not feel that I have been biased (any more than necessary) by my studies, but only that I came across results which tended to make my own notions more rigorous.

Also, during this period of intense study, where I would attend graduate classes from 8 in the morning until 6 at night, and then read at night, I was really fulfilling my neurological needs as an Asperger. Although I didn't know it at the time, my obsessive need to collect every fact, which is similar to my obsessive need to look at every possible move on a chess board, was really a fulfillment of my needs.

I made a few assumptions about my work on AI. First, without actually learning of the distinction between strong AI and weak AI, I realized that there were indeed two classes of AI, and that weak AI seems a prerequisite of strong AI. In fact I was relatively certain because strong AI would be capable of achieving weak AI on its own. So either way, weak AI would be developed.

Weak AI means to me problems that are solved by existing mathematical and computational technologies - that is, all problems that are computable by classical computers.

This begs this question, "what is the class of problems that computer can solve", and also this, "can they solve all formalizable problems about their own behaviour". In fact, my initial work centered on finding this program, but I did not know how complex this program would be.

What tended to startle people in the earlier part of last century was that this program did not in fact exist. It had been called by various names in the past - the Entscheidungsproblem, the Hilbert program. Several people simultaneously realized that this program did not exist. This included Church, Turing, Godel, Zermelo, Russell, King, Wittenstein, (even Socrates). Even Von Neumann was startled at this fact, which, in retrospect, is entirely obvious.

But this fact is not at all a "negative" result as people seem to claim. Indeed this fact presents the solution to us very clearly.

That is, for any program, there exists another program which is larger and which can solve a strictly larger class of problems.

So, based on this relatively simple analysis, I compared the efficiency of these ideas. Since it is known that the time complexity of solving problems, as well as the extent of computable problems, is strictly increased with certain additions to program length, it was rather obvious which additions would provide the greatest increases. These would be the software systems with the greatest capacity relative to other systems. They would not be systems that I wrote myself, but would be systems that other people, scores of other people, had written with lots of funding.

That is, our operative thesis is that the systems capabilities are increased the most by collecting the best software that others have written. Since we do not know, ahead of time, which software is most useful, we collect all of it, and apply decision methods and ratings and tests to all software, and package applications ordered by ease of packaging and utility after being packaged.

Many people have problems with the fact that we do not uniquely specify which problem we intend to solve. This is a characteristic requirement which Asperger's do not have. The fact is that we have proven the systems capabilities have increased. Furthermore, we simply make the claim that we can, transitively, solve every problem which the system we collected was designed to solve.

But in practice there are very few attempts at collecting software. The reason for this is most people are motivated to solve a specific goal. But solving a particular problem is usually a waste of time. It forces a long and complicated search (naturally because the system is weaker proof theoretically than a larger system). Collecting software on the otherhand, in leiu of automatically solving more problems later, is very important. But in order to solve more problems, a certain minimal rate is needed to have a self sustaining reaction.

That is why I implore you to help me find people willing to program packages for an indefinite period of time.

The cost of failure are infinite stacks, and we have proposed a most reasonable objective. Furthermore, the lack of such similar practices indicates a certain novelty, which may be attached to the probably of finding a gifted Asperger.

Of course, there is a limit to how much software we can collect. But we are far from that limit - and once we hit it, our situation will be quite different. We will have shared systems that are in many respects extremely capable. Until we collect this software, we realize, like Godel's S and S', that there are infinitely classes of theorems that we cannot prove with our systems.

Einstein, Godel, Newton - all the greats had Asperger's. It is ironic and unfortunate that by virtue of the very skills I have, and the skills I apparently don't have, the skills I have are ridiculed, and the skills I don't have are taken as an excuse to not send me to a school where I belong. Everything we see is a product of this misappropriation of talent. In highschool I worked at Fermilab as an experimental physicist, with a classmate. She went to Princeton as a physicist. But everyone thought I was lazy, because people didn't realize that my lack of executive skills, such as time management, allowed me to see things that other people don't. Now, daily my work, which is clearly of historical importance, is forsaken by those who claim to love me. Let actions speak louder than words. Let the truth out. Please stop murdering the truth. You are risking the entire stability of reality.

If somebody writes a 30 million dollar program and gives it away for free, and you don't have it, your genetic material will spontaneously mutate into that of an ameoba. That's like rejecting someone's offer to give you a space shuttle, on the grounds that you can't imagine why in the world you would need it. Moreover if you repeat this 5000 times, you are in trouble. No, I agree with your assessment, why not write it yourself? After all, there's nothing that 1000000 postdoctorate genius programmers could do in thirty years that you couldn't do in a week with C++, right?