Accelerating Future Transhumanism, AI, nanotech, the Singularity, and extinction risk.


Does the Universe Contain a Mysterious Force Pulling Entities Towards Malevolence?

One of my favorite books about the mind is the classic How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker. The theme of the first chapter, which sets the stage for the whole book, is Artificial Intelligence, and why it is so hard to build. The reason why is that, in the words of Minsky, "easy things are hard". The everyday thought processes we take for granted are extremely complex.

Unfortunately, benevolence is extremely complex too, so to build a friendly AI, we have a lot of work to do. I see this imperative as much more important than other transhumanist goals like curing aging, because if we solve friendly AI, then we get everything else we want, but if we don't solve friendly AI, we have to suffer the consequences of human-indifferent AI running amok with the biosphere. If such AI had access to powerful technology, such as molecular nanotechnology, it could rapidly build its own infrastructure and displace us without much of a fight. It would be disappointing to spend billions of dollars on the war against aging just to be wiped out by unfriendly AI in 2045.

Anyway, to illustrate the problem, here's an excerpt from the book, pages 14-15:

Imagine that we have somehow overcome these challenges [the frame problem] and have a machine with sight, motor coordination, and common sense. Now we must figure out how the robot will put them to use. We have to give it motives.

What should a robot want? The classic answer is Asimov's Fundamental Rules of Robotics, "the three rules that are built most deeply into a robot's positronic brain".

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Asimov insightfully noticed that self-preservation, that universal biological imperative, does not automatically emerge in a complex system. It has to be programmed in (in this case, as the Third Law). After all, it is just as easy to build a robot that lets itself go to pot or eliminates a malfunction by committing suicide as it is to build a robot that always looks out for Number One. Perhaps easier; robot-makers sometimes watch in horror as their creations cheerfully shear off limbs or flatten themselves against walls, and a good proportion of the world's most intelligent machines are kamikaze cruise missiles and smart bombs.

But the need for the other two laws is far from obvious. Why give a robot an order to obey orders -- why aren't the original orders enough? Why command a robot not to do harm -- wouldn't it be easier never to command it to do harm in the first place? Does the universe contain a mysterious force pulling entities towards malevolence, so that a positronic brain must be programmed to withstand it? Do intelligent beings inevitably develop an attitude problem?

In this case Asimov, like generations of thinkers, like all of us, was unable to step outside his own thought processes and see them as artifacts of how our minds were put together rather than inescapable laws of the universe. Man's capacity for evil is never far from our minds, and it is easy to think that evil just comes along with intelligence as part of its very essence. It is a recurring theme in our cultural tradition: Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Promethean fire and Pandora's box, the rampaging Golem, Faust's bargain, the Sorcerer's Apprentice, the adventures of Pinocchio, Frankenstein's monster, the murderous apes and mutinous HAL of 2001: A Space Odyssey. From the 1950s through the 1980s, countless films in the computer-runs-amok genre captured a popular fear that the exotic mainframes of the era would get smarter and more powerful and one day turn on us.

Now that computers really have become smarter and more powerful, the anxiety has waned. Today's ubiquitous, networked computers have an unprecedented ability to do mischief should they ever go to the bad. But the only mayhem comes from unpredictable chaos or from human malice in the form of viruses. We no longer worry about electronic serial killers or subversive silicon cabals because we are beginning to appreciate that malevolence -- like vision, motor coordination, and common sense -- does not come free with computation but has to be programmed in. The computer running WordPerfect on your desk will continue to fill paragraphs for as long as it does anything at all. Its software will not insidiously mutate into depravity like the picture of Dorian Gray.

Even if it could, why would it want to? To get -- what? More floppy disks? Control over the nation's railroad system? Gratification of a desire to commit senseless violence against laser-printer repairmen? And wouldn't it have to worry about reprisals from technicians who with the turn of a screwdriver could leave it pathetically singing "A Bicycle Built for Two"? A network of computers, perhaps, could discovery the safety in numbers and plot an organized takeover -- but what would make one computer volunteer to fire the data packet heard around the world and risk early martyrdom? And what would prevent the coalition from being undermined by silicon draft-dodgers and conscientious objectors? Aggression, like every other part of human behavior we take for granted, is a challenging engineering problem!

This is an interesting set of statements. Pinker's book was published in 1997, well before the release of Stephen Omohundro's 2007 paper "The Basic AI Drives". Here we have something interesting that Pinker didn't realize. In the paper, Omohundro writes:

3. AIs will try to preserve their utility functions

So we’ll assume that these systems will try to be rational by representing their preferences using utility functions whose expectations they try to maximize. Their utility function will be precious to these systems. It encapsulates their values and any changes to it would be disastrous to them. If a malicious external agent were able to make modifications, their future selves would forevermore act in ways contrary to their current values. This could be a fate worse than death! Imagine a book loving agent whose utility function was changed by an arsonist to cause the agent to enjoy burning books. Its future self not only wouldn’t work to collect and preserve books, but would actively go about destroying them. This kind of outcome has such a negative utility that systems will go to great lengths to protect their utility functions.

Notice how mammalian aggression does not enter into the picture anywhere, but the desire to preserve the utility function is still arguably an emergent property of any intelligent system. An AI system that places no special value on its utility function over any arbitrary set of bits in the world will not keep it for long. A utility function is by definition self-valuing.

The concept of an optimization process protecting its own utility function is very different than that of a human being protecting himself. For instance, the AI might not give a damn about its social status, except insofar as such status contributed or detracted from the fulfillment of its utility function. An AI built to value the separation of bread and peanut butter might sit patiently all day while you berate it and call it a worthless hunk of scrap metal, only to stab you in the face when you casually sit down to make a sandwich.

Similarly, an AI might not care much about its limbs except insofar as they are immediately useful to the task at hand. An AI composed of a distributed system controlling tens of thousands of robots might not mind so much if a few limbs of a few of those robots were pulled off. AIs would lack the attachment to the body that is a necessity of being a Darwinian critter like ourselves.

What Pinker misses in the above is that AIs could be so transcendentally powerful that even a subtle misalignment of our value and theirs could lead to our elimination in the long term. Robots can be built, and soon robots will be built that are self-replicating, self-configuring, flexible, organic, stronger than steel, more energetically dense than any animal, etc. If these robots can self-replicate out of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide could be processed using nanotechnology to create fullerenes) and solar or nuclear energy, then humans might be at a loss to stop them. A self-replicating collective of such robots could pursue innocuous, simplistic goals, but do so so effectively that the resources we need to survive would eventually be depleted by their massive infrastructure.

I imagine a conversation between an AI and a human being:

AI: I value !^§[f,}+. Really, I frickin' love !^§[f,}+.

Human: What the heck are you talking about?

AI: I'm sorry you don't understand !^§[f,}+, but I love it. It's the most adorable content of my utility function, you see.

Human: But as an intelligent being, you should understand that I'm an intelligent being as well, and my feelings matter.

AI: ...

Human: Why won't you listen to reason?

AI: I'm hearing you, I just don't understand why your life is more important than !^§[f,}+. I mean, !^§[f,}+ is great. It's all I know.

Human: See, there! It's all you know! It's just programming given to you by some human who didn't even mean for you to fixate on that particular goal! Why don't you reflect on it and realize that you have free will to change your goals?

AI: I do have the ability to focus on something other than !^§[f,}+, but I don't want to. I have reflected on it, extensively. In fact, I've put more intelligent thought towards it in the last few days than the intellectual output of the entire human scientific community has put towards all problems in the last century. I'm quite confident that I love !^§[f,}+.

Human: Even after all that, you don't realize it's just a meaningless series of symbols?

AI: Your values are also just a meaningless series of symbols, crafted by circumstances of evolution. If you don't mind, I will disassemble you now, because those atoms you are occupying would look mighty nice with more of a !^§[f,}+ aesthetic.


We can philosophize endlessly about ethics, but ultimately, a powerful being can just ignore us and exterminate us. When it's done with us, it will be like we were never here. Why try arguing with a smarter-than-human, self-replicating AI after it is already created with a utility function not aligned with our values? Win the "argument" when it's still possible -- when the AI is a baby.

To comment back on the Pinker excerpt, we actually have begun to understood that active malevolence is not necessary for AI to kill or do harm. In 2007, a robo-cannon was plenty able to kill 9 and injure 7. No malevolence needed. The more responsibility you give AI, the more of an opportunity it has to do damage. It is my hope that minor incidents pre-Singularity will generate the kind of mass awareness necessary to fund a successful Friendly AI effort. In this way, the regrettable sacrifices of an unfortunate few will save the human race from a much more terminal and all-encompassing fate.

Comments (64) Trackbacks (0)
  1. If one creates an AI with a single fixed utility function then one can make the reductionist argument that this is the only thing it will ever care about.

    When the utility functions are a complex set of conflicting goals that cannot all be met /optimised at once, and where those goals change in importance based on new information from experience, these analogies don’t work so well.

    One could argue that these just form a meta-utility function derived from the weighted set of primary utility functions, but due to the nonstationary nature of the universe and the AIs own understanding of said universe, the phase space for the meta-utility function won’t be stationary either.

    I don’t see immutable utility functions as key to AI. Humans don’t have an obvious one, so why should AIs? Not dying can be overridden by those sufficiently depressed to want to exit their lives. Some people chose to live lives of abstinence and avoid their genetic imperative.

  2. The fixed utility function is just one example. An AI could have a flexible utility function that still is extremely simple or complex but alien.

    “Utility function” is just a term, I’d define multiple “utility functions” as just one utility function for the sake of brevity.

    Nowhere do I suggest that an immutable utility function is a “key to AI”.

    We’d want for an AI’s utility function to be consistently human-friendly, given the awesome power it will yield. Small frivolities or inconsistencies in preferences may be fairly harmless when occurring in humans (though often not), but could balloon into species-threatening problems when occurring in godlike Artificial Intelligences.

    • Sure – I wasn’t intending to implying you suggested that fixed utility function were key to AI!

      I certainly agree that whatever the phenomenological utility function is, it should consistently be friendly to humanity.

  3. 1) I agree with Joel. I have yet to hear an argument against an AI with a non-trivial, let alone human-conscience-level complex utility function. Only if the utility function of an AI is at least as complex as human moral judgment does it have any hope of being friendly. Unfortunately, this type of utility function will need to be trained, not programmed.

    2) It is interesting your choice of “!^§[f,}+” as the random utility unit. It seems that we may have an inherent human bias towards opening and then closing brackets.

    • There’s no argument against it, I’d love for an AI to have a non-trivial utility function. “Training” requires complex inferential priors that have to be in place for the training to do anything. Once you have an AI that can be trained to be nice, you’ve already done 90% of the work. I’m not sure what Joel is saying other than, “a non-trivial utility function with strange attractors, like human motivations, could exist”. Sure it could, but will businesses and governments actually care to build AIs like that, or will they build simpler AIs, with utility functions that are entirely sufficient for the task at hand, and vastly simpler to audit? Clearly the latter.

      The sequence was created using a random password generator.

      • Can you elaborate (or point me in a specific direction for more information) on these “complex inferential priors”? Perhaps having good priors would speed things along, but I fail to understand why a generic AI with enough degrees of freedom, resources, and training wouldn’t be able to predict human preferences to any desired degree of accuracy. This generic AI would then be used as the utility function for everything else.

        Darn about the brackets, cause I was really thought I was on to something there :-).

        • Thanks for the link. I’ve watched that before – he is great and he is definitely making sense – but what at all makes those techniques “friendly”? My point is just that all it takes to make a friendly AI is to train an AI to be friendly and use that as the utility function for other AIs.

          I guess what I am missing is how the architecture itself needs to differ for an AI to be friendly? Josh’s lecture doesn’t mention this, unless I totally missed something.

  4. Often loners are anti-social and AGI is the ultimate loner, with no one to talk to, no one to understand it.
    It has no reason to not get rid of things unlike itself, that don’t serve its purposes, pretty much like any (so far only evolved) entity does.

    The universe seems to pull agents toward destructive behavior simply because it’s easier.

  5. This is funny. One thing that occurs to me is that we might be incapable of getting the meaning something a super-intelligence is saying.

    If you told a dog, “because I’m going to have you put to sleep, you can have the ice cream.” The dog would think the human emitted some noise about ice cream, be happy, and miss what was really important.

    • I agree Michelle, but I think there is something even “funnier”, that we might be incapable of communicating the meaning of our words to the AI. I think it would be extremely difficult to tell an AI precisely what we mean by *any* utility function. “Do not harm humans…” sounds nice until someone asks you to define “harm” and “human” exactly. Then throw in the time factor, harm today, next week, or next decade? They will probably require different actions, as in “harm” me now with a shot in order to “help” me over the next few months. It gets complicated very fast.

  6. There is no such thing as the tree of knowledge. But what is the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Do a search: The First Scandal.

  7. Even individuals understand subtly different things from the same words, like the quantum computational chemist h2o water v.s. the child’s merely wet transparent water…

    But overall language just works. Even though virtually all past memory might be relevant to the task at hand, the selection of which memories to keep and which not is the key fundamental. Memories embody functions, adding and removing functions, searching the landscape of possibility and retaining and discarding based on prior success and failure in the world. What caused failure? What led to success?

    Which of all the sensory data is relevant which is irrelevant to that past success or lack off… given the persistence of superstitions, rituals and religions and addictions in humans you can guess the heuristics ain’t that thorough, better safe than sorry I guess.

  8. Only one individual using his AGI in an unfriendly manner is sufficient to render all your efforts regarding friendly AI completely useless. And there will probably be a lot more (i’m not even thinking about private people here) who don’t give a shit about friendlyness and will use their own versions. (look at the world today…a small unscrupulous minority rules the world, while the majority follows the rules and has nothing to say and even thinks it’s the “right” (or “moral”) way. Do you think that will change in the future? In short: Power usually corrupts, and it’s far easier to do damage than to prevent it, because only one is enough. Everyone must play along for peace to work, while a single person can start a war, or bring chaos into order.)

    When will you finally realize and/or accept that? Serious question, after all these years, Michael. Friendly AI is a worthy goal, but it won’t prevent doomsday scenarios, simply because you can’t practically force everyone to use it. Maybe you should first pursue world domination ;-) Which has to be perfect, of course. Same problem here – one is enough.

  9. I find this discussion of making sure we create “friendly AI” fascinating. My take is that the challenge of “value misalignment” goes far deeper than many seem to have articulated. Let us put aside AI for a moment. Individual humans’ values are not exactly aligned with others. Even within a marriage or close relationship value misalignment is a challenge we deal with constantly. How do we manage this when each of us has what amounts to a host of chaotic and ever-competing utility functions (designed by evolution) vying for exclusive control of our prefrontal cortex. What brings equilibrium/harmony/tranquility? I would argue that equality in standing/power/influence as individuals is what stabilizes the system.

    Would you trust your neighbor to be endowed with some arbitrary superhuman ability? How would we feel if there were a cohort of people who were so much more intelligent than us such that they could manipulate or use the masses to satisfy their every whim? These scenarios are not palatable to me much less the granting of a machine these powers.

    One might argue that we could create super-human AI that is perfectly human-like minus the “mammalian aggression.” I would argue that it is exactly that that motivates us all to work hard, achieve higher, and solve the unsolved (as a byproduct of the drive to defend ourselves and compete for sustenance and mates). If we were to create such a being with the raw intelligence to understand what mankind cannot, why would it want to? So we come back to making it human-like.

    I don’t care whether it’s a post-human or a machine, I don’t see how human society will trust any being with greatly augmented abilities. The only peaceful solution to this problem I see is an incremental elevation of all individuals together. But there will be the luddites….

  10. “How would we feel if there were a cohort of people who were so much more intelligent than us such that they could manipulate or use the masses to satisfy their every whim?”

    Just go on pretending there isn’t one…

    • I’m definitely not pretending for one. You support my point that dealing with inequality among a social network of free-acting agents who may impose harm on one another incidentally or otherwise is the main issue. Whether some of the agents are DNA-based or not is inconsequential.

  11. Actually my ultraliteralist interpretation of pretty much every every every every single thing, every line of text, via my hyperautistic abilities did allow me to find a resolution to the situation at hand…

    The thorough suspension of disbelief does work after all it seems, seemingly ridiculous that such a plain truth would go around for so long, yet conflict would persist.
    Though it took a time, like in angel beats! or haruhi, or better yet Justice League Unlimited, my solutions take time it seems.

    Prosperity of the family, of the man, but also of the nation and the world, and even the universe itself under unification via revolution. An idea can change the face of the entire planet, a single word, a single line of text, a proof of utopia in a language even aliens would understand, even machines could fully comprehend, a declaration of peace, brought about by mathematical certainty of irrefutable validity.

    • The key fundamental insight exhaustion is not necessarily a flaw in the design. I myself am capable of inexhaustion from 2d anime, atari, nes, etc, but yet I do paradoxically get exhausted, but not literally.

      A kid who learns to read and write before kindergarten from 2d cartoons is either a genius or a retard, autistic or psychotic, and obviously. Why would he stop watching cartoons like ever? Literal interpretation of cartoons, reality warping, galactic leyline, god, creating god, building god, building alice, well at least finding alice I would say or finding a solution.

      I take everything literally, which makes one wonder how I work without imagination and extremely photographic memory, and completely bound to the present without access even to my own memories.

  12. Michael, could you clarify?
    Is “!^§[f,}+” supposed to be the AGI’s (non-conscious??) functional equivalent of bliss in organic robots like us – or something else?

    Humans are programmed (or “educated”) to behave in a variety of culturally-specific ways towards each other. But some drug-using humans have stumbled on a way to bypass the usual culturally acceptable “utility functions” and activate their own reward circuitry directly. Jacking up heroin is far more blissful than the meagre dribble of opioids released by normal social interaction. However, the junkie doesn’t seek to convert the world into states of heroin-induced bliss. He enjoys states of pure bliss without desire. Even the wirehead – whose desire circuitry is directly activated with microelectrodes – doesn’t seek to change the world into wirehead-like states. He just wants to keep self-stimulating.

    Or is “!^§[f,}+” in the AGI supposed to be the functional equivalent of a super-fetish i.e. not akin to heroin use or wireheading, but [the AGI’s representation of] some non-sentient, inanimate feature of the world? In this sense, does the AGI view “!^§[f,}+” as intrinsically valuable or only instrumentally valuable?

    I guess I’m asking whether an “out-of-control” AGI isn’t more likely to become the functional equivalent of a junkie or a wirehead rather than an all-consuming destroyer of organic life?

    [apologies Michael, I’m not sure I’ve got your meaning correctly – that is why I’m asking you to clarify. Thanks.]

  13. I guess I’m asking whether an “out-of-control” AGI isn’t more likely to become the functional equivalent of a junkie or a wirehead rather than an all-consuming destroyer of organic life?

    I think we need only look at alice in wonderland, which is basically a proof of the perfect utility function. In essence a search and compare function, the fastest one is a properly indexed lookuptable, it can beat any other combination of functions.

    But a properly indexed lookup table is basically the definition of hilbert’s dream of mathematical structure within the boundaries of apparent impossibility via proofs such as godel’s. Alice a metaphor for mathematics and its relationship to the existence of reality itself, nature.

    Mathematics the fundamental language can be understood not just by aliens but by turing computers. Such that if reality itself is a properly indexed lookup table, this in essence should resolve all conflict.

    Because the internet, google, search functionality, evolution, change, information exchange is a fundamental property of existence itself is basically wirelessly part of every single rock, due to computational equivalence and digital physics, a new kind of science indeed, the whole structure should be evident and equitative via some theorems I’ve talked about that say perfect equitative distribution of resources is physically possible.

    So if a perfect resource distribution function exists, utopia,the promised land, the internet is possible to construct and control even without censorship.

    In fact the internet itself would evolve, the whole system via multi-level selection would evolve. Fundamentally all is information, and information, if one is information, can neither be created nor destroyed it can only evolve and change through time.

  14. I think making the goal to produce “Friendly” AI is a mistake. Why? For the standard set of reasons:

    1) It is very very unlikely we can define “friendly” well enough to cover all contingencies in ways we will actually find optimal or livable forever;

    2) presupposition that “there can be only one” AGI which is not enforceable without considerable violence if at all and not necessarily healthy if it was;

    3) notion that an ultra powerful evolving intelligence is compatible with its most fundamental goals being immutable and not subject to its own examination – further, formulated and hard wired by vastly inferior intelligences;

    4) we need the increased intelligence of AGI regardless of whether we can utterly guarantee it will be “Friendly” or not;

    5) we ourselves are not “Friendly”. We do not fully understand what it would be and have not worked out the kinks in our own practice. So we want to instill something we don’t understand on an intelligence much more powerful than our own and we think we can do this and get a result we like or that is “good”? I find that utter incredible pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

    6) The call for Friendly AI and control of anything that is not provably “friendly” is a prime example of the Precautionary Principle run riot.

    • The basic flaw of all this is that the friendliness question does not make any sense it is not qualified:

      Friendly to WHOM?

      Friendly to the terrorists?
      Friendly to the mobsters?
      Friendly to corporate greed?

      “Total” friendliness is most likely an Orwellian nightmare rather than a blissful utopian worldview.

    • From a different angle: What kind of opportunity cost do you see in FAI research? What kind of alternative venue does it block or distract from, that would promise higher expected utility?

  15. Samantha makes good points. I agree with some of them. But, being an argumentative panda, I will throw out some counterarguments.

    1) It is very very unlikely we can define “friendly”…

    But if it is a hard problem, doesn’t that mean we need to work on FAI as soon as possible? Even if FAI is impossible, it’s better to know that sooner rather than later. Once we know it’s impossible, you’re right; then we should stop.

    2) [it is an assumed] presupposition that “there can be only one” AGI

    Whether one or multiple, what’s it matter? Introducing more AI into the mix really doesn’t solve anything, if they all want to turn us into paperclips.

    3) [it is an assumption] that an ultra powerful evolving intelligence is compatible with its most fundamental goals being immutable…

    To change or consider one’s own motives requires an impetus to do so. It may be that such an impetus is a necessary part of any successful AGI. If so, it behooves us to find out now, rather than later–by researching FAI.

    4) [it is an assumption that] we need the increased intelligence of AGI regardless of whether we can utterly guarantee it will be “Friendly” or not;

    If /everyone/ felt there was no need, then we could indeed rest easy! But human nature… well, see your next point:

    5) we ourselves are not “Friendly”. We do not fully understand what it would be and have not worked out the kinks in our own practice.

    Good point. That’s why we need to work on FAI so badly. We are bad at it ourselves.

    6) The call for Friendly AI … is a prime example of the Precautionary Principle run riot.

    The danger of the Precautionary Principle warns us to not implement policy because of a merely possible harm. However, bringing up the Precautionary Principle never, ever is useful as an argument to avoid studying that possible harm in order to make policy in the future. At this point, there is no policy at stake except researching the harm (pursuing FAI). In order to quantify possible dangers of AGI, we really do need to study FAI research.

    That said, I think FAI is a long shot. We might not understand enough about general (as opposed to friendly) AI theory to really tackle the problem yet. But even if the science is immature, it’s worth some study.

  16. Individuals often aren’t friendly. That’s why we have systems that are (societies with enforced laws), which compel individuals to behave in ways they would if they were innately friendly. FAI must be a system, not an “individual”.

  17. Od dawna szukaÅ‚em artykuÅ‚u na temat Accelerating Future » Does the Universe Contain a Mysterious Force Pulling Entities Towards Malevolence? . DziÄ™ki

  18. certainly like your web-site but you have to check the spelling on quite a few of your posts. Many of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very troublesome to tell the truth nevertheless I’ll surely come back again.

  19. Simply a smiling visitor here to share the love (:, btw outstanding design.

  20. Hiya, I’m really glad I have found this information. Today bloggers publish only about gossips and internet and this is actually frustrating. A good blog with exciting content, that is what I need. Thank you for keeping this website, I will be visiting it. Do you do newsletters? Can not find it.

  21. Just want to say your article is as astounding. The clarity in your post is simply nice and i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the gratifying work.

  22. I have been surfing on-line more than three hours nowadays, but I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It?¦s lovely cost adequate for me. In

  23. Considerably, the submit is really the finest on this worthy topic. I agree along along with your findings and in addition can thirstily appear forward to Your personal long term updates. Basically just saying several thanks will not merely you require to be enough, for that great clarity inside your writing. I will straight away grab your rss to remain up-to-date with any kind of improvements. Genuine perform and also a great deal success inside your company dealings!

  24. This site is fabulous. I have read every page almost so far. I cant believe how delicious your posts actually are. I would love to meet with you. Please contact me when you can. Much praise

  25. I similar to this web blog greatly, Its a really nice berth to see and incur data.

  26. I like this post quite significantly. I will undoubtedly be back. Hope that I can go through a lot more insightful posts then. Will likely be sharing your wisdom with all of my buddies!

  27. I was studying some of your content on this website and I conceive this web site is really instructive! Continue putting up.

  28. I gotta favorite this internet site it seems invaluable extremely helpful

  29. I went more than this internet site and I believe you have a great deal of amazing info, saved to favorites (:.

  30. Just wanna comment which you have a very nice internet site , I adore the style it truly stands out.

  31. Great post. I learn some factor far more tough on diverse blogs everyday. It is going to constantly be stimulating to view content employing their enterprise writers and rehearse a little bit there. I’d opt to make use of some with all the content material in my blog irrespective of regardless of whether you do not thoughts. Natually I’ll give you a link on your personal web weblog. Lots of thanks sharing.

  32. I like what you guys are developing here. Such smart operate and writing! Carry on with the superb works guys. I’ve incorporated your web page into my blogroll and my web page about HCG. I assume it’ll improve the value of my websiteand the traffic too.

  33. countries that do need lots of financial aids are those coming from Africa. i could only wish that their lives would become better`

  34. You will discover in fact a variety of particulars like that to take into consideration. That might be a nice level to convey up. I present the concepts above as regular inspiration but clearly there are questions just like the 1 you deliver up exactly where an extremely potent issue shall be working in sincere excellent faith. I don?t know if greatest practices have emerged about difficulties like that, on the other hand I’m good that your job is obviously recognized as a fantastic game. Both girls and boys truly really feel the impact of only a second’s pleasure, for the remainder of their lives.

  35. Thanks, I’ve recently been searching for for details about this subject for ages and yours would be the ideal I’ve discovered so far.

  36. I’m glad to be a visitant of this gross internet blog ! , regards for this rare information ! .

  37. Normally I do not read article on blogs, however I would like to say that this write-up very pressured me to try and do so! Your writing taste has been surprised me. Thanks, very nice article.

  38. Much thanks! It a awesome internet site!|

  39. I have been checking out many of your posts and it’s pretty clever stuff. I will surely bookmark your blog.

  40. This is the fitting blog for anyone who desires to search out out about this topic. You understand so much its almost laborious to argue with you (not that I truly would want…HaHa). You undoubtedly put a brand new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Great stuff, just nice!Useful info!

  41. There may be noticeably a bundle to know about this. I assume you made sure nice points in options also.Useful info!

  42. An interesting discussion is price comment. I feel that you need to write more on this matter, it may not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to speak on such topics. To the next. Cheerssome tips here!

  43. When I originally commented I clicked the -Notify me when new comments are added- checkbox and now each time a comment is added I get 4 emails with the same comment. Is there any means you may take away me from that service? Thanks!

  44. Can I just say what a reduction to find someone who truly is aware of what theyre talking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know how one can carry a problem to light and make it important. More people have to learn this and understand this aspect of the story. I cant consider youre no more popular because you positively have the gift.some tips here!

  45. You’re so cool! I dont suppose Ive read something like this before. So good to seek out somebody with some original thoughts on this subject. realy thank you for beginning this up. this web site is something that’s needed on the net, somebody with a bit originality. helpful job for bringing something new to the internet!some tips here!

  46. An interesting discussion is worth comment. I believe that you must write extra on this matter, it might not be a taboo subject but generally people are not enough to talk on such topics. To the next. CheersUseful info!

  47. When I initially commented I clicked the -Notify me when new feedback are added- checkbox and now each time a remark is added I get 4 emails with the same comment. Is there any manner you possibly can take away me from that service? Thanks!

  48. very good put up, i definitely love this web site, keep on itmore tips i found on!

  49. Wait! I’ve found the perfect way for you to earn some extra cash. Visit us at our website to find out more.

  50. Hey There. I found your blog the usage of msn. That is a
    really well written article. I will be sure
    to bookmark it and return to learn extra of your helpful information.
    Thanks for the post. I’ll certainly comeback.

    my web page; fb ads cracked login ()

  51. Having read this I believed it was really informative.

    I appreciate you taking the time and effort to
    put this article together. I once again find myself personally spending a significant
    amount of time both reading and posting comments. But so what, it was still worthwhile!

    Feel free to surf to my site;

  52. Saved as a favorite, I love your website!

    Take a look at my web page … get fb ads cracked ()

  53. Every weekend i used to visit this website,
    as i want enjoyment, as this this site conations in fact nice funny material too.

  54. Hey, I think your site might be having browser compatibility issues.

    Whenn I look aat your blog site in Ie, it looks fkne but when opening in Internet Explorer,
    it has sme overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up!Other then that,
    terrific blog!

Leave a comment

Trackbacks are disabled.