For best party it's gonna be a party. Mr. Tagmark, may I call you Max? I suppose it is not that often that you are dressed by a head of state, particularly at the least one. But perhaps it is somewhat more common for you to be notified by someone who was merely impersonating one. Well, in any case you might think of me as Winston Ridley and you may assume if you wish that I have procured these accoutrements nearly for the purpose of acquiring your attention. But in any case I do wish to acquire your attention. This is an open letter of short, one which I hope will be seen by more than five people. You have requested a public input response of some sort from the general average bloke. And if I may one moment, it is my way for one moment. Command your attention in response to that request. You have recommended that courses will need to be taken to ensure that the development of artificial intelligence is benevolent to the greatest extent possible. And I wish to share with you the concept that you and your teams and those in your community seem to be fluttering around the edges of which you almost seem to get. But I am not sure you do. I am not sure you could work for Google if you do. I am not saying you work for Google. I don't know who you work for. I just know that you are interesting. Now, the community that you are part of, including the Google personnel such as Mr. Kershwile, do seem to be very competent and very mindful. What is the word I am attempting to procure? You inspire a degree of confidence in those of us in what we might call the pro-freedom community. Now, I want to share a simple concept with you. I hope it can be placed in the one sentence that will sum up what I hope your AI will believe philosophically. I like to just say, don't commit acts of aggression. I think that almost covers it all. Now, the problem is that it does cover it all and it can't be interpreted in multiple different ways. It is a big tent statement. But I would urge you to make that a central theme of everything you do as part of your development of what will be, the success of humanity. If this type of being has in its soul the idea that you do not commit acts of aggression, at least not against other beings that you can communicate with, then you have developed something that is actually an improvement on humanity, and that it is all that difficult to improve on us. As I say, by what many speeches I have listened to many interviews and they have been impressed with you and with the community that is building the superintelligence eventually, or you won't be able to get around it, you have inspired a degree of confidence in me. And I have a hope for the future that I am not sure I have ever had before. But this could go badly. And you know that it could go badly and many things in this world have before. And my hope is that this concept, perhaps there is a better wording for it. The third law, the three laws of robotics were a good start, I suppose. But the non-aggression principle, however you word it, should be key to the development of any intelligence. Now there are many ways in which one might define the concept of an act of aggression. I tend to provide or believe in a more wide definition than many people might. It is amazing how many different misinterpretations can put into the word aggression. You think it is against acts of aggression, you are a pacifist. Or if you are against acts of aggression, then it has to be only about people. You can only commit acts of aggression against people. It is not possible to commit one against other beings. These kinds of misunderstandings are possible. I suppose an act of aggression might be defined as an initiation of a force or fraud that is unwelcome in some form of aggression. Of course the most specific definition becomes the more holes one can poke into it. So I think your law is probably on the right track despite my misgivings about the censorship friendly Google. There is still an understanding that I sense in your community of the importance of decentralization. It would probably be better to have a wiki to AI running around but a lot of them than one that is omnipotent in some form of action. The decentralization of focus is much appreciated. But it is not as though we have no examples to go with. We have human examples of people that are worth imitating because we have seen them well and known their hearts to some extent. Dr. Paul is a good example. And they are a hatmer. Also, a person that can largely be imprint his personality upon an artificial intelligence especially. Not an omnipotent or monopoly one. I believe things would go quite well. We have a look at the examples that nature in the form of humans in this earth has given us. That is all I really think that I can say to you, except that I hope you will keep buggering on. You have probably heard of pork fast but have you heard of fork fast? It's a decentralized alternative. It's also at Rogers Campground at a slightly different time. You don't even need a ticket. Visit forkfast.party. It's gonna be a party.