In 2004 I had been working in two fields. I was a computer network manager for a telecom company in Costa Mesa, California. I had earned numerous industry certifications and a degree in computer network management. I had also been working with a number of medical management companies, and as an office manager & assistant for a clinical psychologist.

At that time I surmised that at some point in the future these two disciplines would intersect, and the idea of Artificial Psychology was born. Unknown to me at the time is the term itself had already been coined, however the concept that it was coined for was entirely different than what I was thinking of.

There was an idea out there somewhere that computers might be used for counseling and therapy. Of course having experience in both fields I think this is a terrible idea. I thought so then, and I am even more convinced of it now. But this is not what my concept of Artificial Psychology is about.

My concept has to do with the programming of the AI agent, not the user.

Computer programming in 2004 was an incredibly rapidly growing field. While not a "developer" per se, I do have a solid handle on what is involved, especially in terms of complexity and scope. I had written some small programs in various languages, things that were not much more than "Hello World" or menu systems or task managers.

Coding is really not a fit for my personality so I didn't go very far with it, because it was not required for my job. We had a programmer who handled security and app development, while I managed (among other things) coding the corporate website in html, dhtml, dss, and js. I'm competent with websites, not an indepth developer, but for the purposes of this conversation, I do have a qualified opinion.

Mostly I built things like workstations, servers, networks, and implemented whatever technology the CIO noticed in PC Weekly. I have been in the field since 1994, and by 2004 I could see clearly that the number of languages, size of programs, and complexity had grown exponentially. It did not seem difficult to imagine where this trajectory would lead to: systems would eventually outgrow the human ability to manage them in the traditional sense, and therefore a new paradigm would be needed.

Please forward this document to your congressional representatives. I believe it is important and needs to be addressed now.

Sadly I do not have any of my original work on the subject from that time (2004), but it is timestamped 2008 on the Wikipedia page Artificial Psychology. with my name attached to it, so it can be positively identified at least back that far.

---

The basic premise is that at some point an artificial intelligence agent will grow in complexity beyond our ability to correct programming issues by simple recoding. The requirements necessitation Artificial Psychology are outlined as:

Condition I

• A: The AI makes all of its decisions autonomously
• B: Is capable of making decisions based on information that is

1. New
2. Abstract
3. Incomplete

• C: The artificial intelligence is capable of reprogramming itself based on the new data, allowing it to evolve.
• D: And is capable of resolving its own programming conflicts, even in the presence of incomplete data. This means that the intelligence autonomously makes value-based decisions, referring to values that the intelligence has created for itself.

Condition II

• All four criteria are met in situations that are not part of the original operating program

---

I revisited the issue again in 2022 because at that time there was a growing body of critics who talked about the dangers of AI, impending AGI, "the singularity," and other narratives along those lines. After reviewing the information I had access to, I concluded that we were still nowhere near the levels of computing complexity that would cross the thresholds I predicted.

It should be noted that I was only peripherally involved in IT in 2022, and did not have access to insider information that might have changed my opinion. I posted my conclusion at that time that Artificial Psychology would remain a theoretical discipline for the foreseeable future. It turns out I was mistaken.

Whether or not my opinion was accurate then, it is a moot point now: we have surely crossed the rubric. And many decades earlier than I thought it might happen.

For this reason I have created a white paper outlining what I believe is necessary now, and why.

An entire field must be created, and the urgency is that it must be addressed before the industry calcifies into proprietary, privately owned and operated, confidential structures that will effectively obsure existential threats from those who are at risk: All of us.