Toward a work free world


Any fan of Star Trek NG or Orville knows the theory of molecular synthesizer driven economy making money obsolete. True AI combined with humanoid robots can accomplish the same goal and more. A farm and home robot with an Azimov’s 3 laws operating system like in I Robot NS4 hardware plus a creative life seeking application like in Short Circuit could be helpful in all aspects of work and be interesting inspiring greater ideas and projects for humans to work on as volunteers instead of as wage slaves. Another potential benefit is more practice of equality instead of hierarchy.

I propose OpenAI spin off a Work Freedom Institute to develop a humanoid robot and software capable of feeding and caring for every family that has one, instantly raising the standard of living around the world. My start in this direction is partly documented at []

One key to real AI is programmig the highest level of intelligence, not addressed by most AI projects. For example an IBM Watson video says it cannot understand Bible parables. Doug Lenat’s Cyc program is said to operate at a 4th grade level - after buying the desktop encyclopedia they use it is obvious why - the text they are encoding is written at a 4th grade level. So the evidence points to the need to parse the Bible enabling generation of sermon level text in the way humans do and the ability to answer questions about each output.

A Q/A loop between two Bible level AI’s could do some very advanced thinking. Consider the goal of pursuing absolute perfection Everyone could be doing church as Jesus’ Gospel says instead of as Paul’s establishments. This would lead everyone to become spiritually empowered through stages of student, apostle, shepherd, overcomer, and Rev. 12:5 man child. A real heads up compared to traditional work.

Recently a TED talk showed a Japanese attempt to gain college entrance for an AI failed because the flat AI’s NN’s produce do not have enough meaning. Let’s produce all the systems needed to put 3 laws safe robots (NS4’s) in everyone’s hands to give each person the equivalent of all the best technology has to offer. That should minimize world hunger, poverty, illiteracy, crime, terrorism, and war.

If OpenAI won’t fund this who will? (A serious question - any leads?)


A machine that pays for itself autonomously, like a self-driving car that runs on electricity, is a great business model to take to a bank for a loan. If you get good enough terms, you don’t pay for the machine, then it makes you money without you being there. Compete with pricing, and you’ll set the new standard for affordable and hassle-free.

Another way I see is to simulate the work environment and keep whatever methods the sim improves, and design machines to replace or augment the people with. Be ready for the “job creator vs. job killer” rhetoric, I’d try to give my employees enough severance pay (near what they made) until they get a new job.


What banks offer long term low interest loans that do not require one’s house as collateral? For new inventions where success is uncertain loans are a bad idea because you can lose your house and ownership of your company. Only when one is selling and needs capital to increase production are loans reasonable. Inventors need other forms of investment such as grants from OpenAI or struggling in poverty like a starving scientist until success. The government SBIR grants are a rip-off costing 150 hours to apply with only 10% award rate which means one must work for 6 months for free which you cannot recoup as overhead on a successful grant, thus the program costs inventors more than it gives average inventors.

This project is so important it should be a national priority but show me a politician and I’ll show you a low information manager pursuing his/her own interests, often giving money to worthless projects. The economy often shoots itself in the foot, paying inventors only upon success keeping truly committed inventors in poverty until they succeed and if they sell equity they lose control of their company in 3 years on average, with ultra-rare examples like Steve Jobs being called back to run his company. So maybe this could be another research topic - how can the economy be redesigned to treat everyone fairly?

Imagine if you need a pair of pants, you ask your robot for it, and the robot gathers materials on your property then makes the pants to fit you. You need food so your robot grows, harvests, prepares, and serves your meals. Your kids need education so your robot teaches them. In home medicine could be performed at zero expense with better results up to the limit where true healing by faith in Jesus is the only answer. Raising the world to full support would be more fair and giving low morality government or hacker people control of the software could be dangerous. So it seems we need Jesus level morality first, which is far superior to the level of ethics found in today’s government.


Affordable energy is a required input to making wealth whether by a human or an AI. As the global supply of affordable energy declines the wealth of the world declines.


Thread hijacking is not welcome. If you want to discuss your topic, please start a new thread. Of course I can’t resist using your words as an example of how OpenAI is not working on real AI because their attention is on most anything else. My question - is OpenAI’s purpose to distract people from real AI because its main funder does not want real AI to succeed, or is it they are so programmed by NN AI hype in schools, business, and media that they cannot see and work on the whole problem?

I was in the first public round of applicants to OpenAI but no one was interested in real AI then and after 60 hires it appears the direction has not changed.


AI is not magic it does not substitute for energy. Yes people get distracted by bright shiny things like neural networks. Though nn do well on perception tasks. It is the building of models of things in the world that nn have not yet shown a skill at.

It is amusing to watch how many have no idea what AI is. For me being able to carry on a conversation at the level of an X year old is a fine test for me, where X is 5, 10, 15, 20, 25.


Yes a good conversation is more than NoN-AI can do unless the layers have much glue logic according to a DARPA video. A Japanese TED video spoke of a system that could pass most of a college entrance exam. Real AI in a robot could earn Ph.D’s physically assist everyone, young and old, replace universities and most of the economy. It could create new movies that have more spiritual lessons than 90% of the DVD’s sold today, raising everyone’s thought life.

More energy is amoral - lots of energy could be drawn from bombs or be used to make more. What is needed is a Bible AI to show people what behaviors are logical and which are not then build from that base to raise everyone’s standards above what is legal or in the case of DARPA above their standard of what is a legal kill that will not bring a future Nuremberg trial.


I was in the first public round of applicants to OpenAI but no one was interested in real AI then and after 60 hires it appears the direction has not changed.

They are not looking for visionaries with specific lifelong goals in mind. They are looking for scientists and engineers who understand goals and challenges of the next few years in complete and thorough detail. If you are also a visionary with a public-spirited goal in mind then this is a good thing for the project.

Your goals may be noble and far-sighted. However, when matched to current abilities of AI systems, they are not practical. Not in the next decade.

An analogy might be if one of the current space flight agencies was recruiting, they want engineers who can design build and test rockets similar to current devices, but efficiently. They don’t want someone with plans to colonise the moons of Jupiter to use them as staging posts for interstellar travel. What would such a person do in the next 50 years? Just tell the engineers to work faster on a goal that is impossible without the in-between steps . . . no company will recruit a person if the only thing they can offer is the long-term vision, no matter how compelling.

Study current AI systems and abilities in detail. Find out what the real concrete stepping stones are on the way towards your vision, and be willing and able to express those as well-defined maths and engineering problems. Encourage and/or work on those as best you can.


Speaking of doing your research, I suggest you look at my websites, both reliablerobots and themanchild. Today I got the shafts for my actuators back from my machinist. I also made progress on my own computer language with which I will eventually build my software that will conserve my programmer time 3 times over other languages. So my vision is being accomplished, although much slower than if I had funding to hire help.

As the BIble says, without a vision the people perish. So vision free scientists and engineers are operating at a lower level than they could be. I have a cousin who is an engineer in Silicon Valley who showed me the tiny steps he gets paid to work on and I don’t like working that slow. He wrote discouraging me from trying to complete in the DARPA Robotics Challenge and my finances did prevent my entry but my website shows I am making progress. I started studying AI in high school, in part because my Dad wanted smart kids and decided raising kids on a farm was best. Dr. GIll Pratt suggested I work on an agricultural robot and emailing very poor people around the world, the vision I’ve presented is what people need. Space ships are unable to help anyone but the wealthy adventurer.

My city administrator recently went to England bringing back enthusiasm for AMRC. Perhaps the city will do something that will help my robot project.

On your advice to study obsolete NN technology and do those steps which guarantee failure, isn’t an exact match but reminds me of a Ph.D. who told me his research was stolen by his boss and put in a new grant application. So how would you apply for a grant without giving enough of the secret sauce away that the granting agency steals your ideas without paying?