--- Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob Mottram wrote: > > On 11/02/2008, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But now, by contrast, if you are assuming (as Matt does, I believe) that > >> somehow a cluster of sub-intelligent specialists across the net will > >> gradually increase in intelligence until their sum total amounts to a > >> full AI, then you are begging some enormous questions. > > > > The "army of experts" is only one possibility. Probably like most > > people on this list I think producing more intelligent machines is > > going to require a more closely integrated cognitive architecture. > > Integration however doesn't mean that the system has to reside on a > > single computer or physical device. > > No, agreed: what I was really arguing against was a scenario that comes > up frequently, in which AI is achieved by accident, so to speak, as a > lot of expert systems gradually accumulate in the net. > > There is no reason, as you say, why someone should not design a complete > AI system that was distributed. In practice, I think that any > organization that will have the wherewithal to do that will take firm > steps to keep it in house.
The idea behind my distributed search/message posting service is an infrastructure that motivates the provision of useful services. It is an economic system based on the currency of information, which has negative value. Peers compete for bandwidth and storage by providing value and developing a reputation so that other peers will copy and forward its messages. AI doesn't "just happen". There is an incentive to make it happen. But no organization will control it. It is too big for that. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=94603346-a08d2f
