Goodness ... I find this whole thread has gotten a bit over-the-top ... but I guess it's at least humorous, in a perverse sort of way...
For sure: the biggest obstacle in the way of human intellect creating superhuman AGI, is humans' emotional nature ;-p ben On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > David Clark wrote: > >> Richard: >> >> I was one of the first people to help you get on the AGI list years ago >> and I have appreciated many of your emails but Ben's comments below are >> right on the money. >> >> Although I don't agree with many of the technical points made by Ed >> Porter, he is obviously very intelligent (as are you) and has much >> interesting information and enthusiasm to bring to the table concerning AGI. >> I look forward to his emails even more than most of the other posters on >> this list. >> >> I for one, very much appreciate the effort made by Ben in writing this >> email and I would appreciate more information on AGI and less chest thumping >> and ego in the emails. >> >> Calling other people's ideas stupid, ridiculous etc IS the same as calling >> other people the same and it hurts just as much. >> > > David, > > Several people have repeated the accusation that I am guilty of namecalling > and engaging in personal attacks that are just as disgraceful as those that > Ed Porter just delivered. > > You repeat the accusation yourself when you say "Calling other people's > ideas stupid, ridiculous etc IS the same as calling other people the same." > > David, in the spirit of scientific objectivity, I just did a search for the > word "stupid" in all of the 811 messages that I have ever posted to the AGI > list. > > There were 58 matches, and I just laboriously analyzed every one of them. > > Of the 58 total, 41 were completely neutral references to some abstract > thing that was 'stupid', or to phrases like 'stupidly simple', with no > bearing on anything that a person on the list said (for example I once said > "what if a stupid AI hacker were to..."). > > On 2 occasions I responded to Ed Porter by denying his accusations, and the > word was not used against him. > > On one occasion I quoted Ed Porter saying to me "Despite your statement to > the contrary --- despite your "FURY" --- I did get your point. Not everybody > beside Richard Loosemore is stupid." This was intented to be a mild insult > directed at me, although it is kind of confused (he meant to say > "intelligent", so I suspect that this was a Freudian slip). > > On 12 occasions the word was used by someone else, and I just quoted it. > The other person was not directing the word at me. > > On one occasion I used the word to refer, in the abstract, to some people > on the SL4 list who had speculated that I may have fabricated my degree > qualifications. This was NOT directed at the person I was talking to, and > it was fully justified by the estraordinary behavior of the people involved. > Here is the exact quote: "(Sorry for the plug, but you know the kind of > stupid nonsense I have had to take from some unmentionable amateurs on these > lists who attack arguments by making libelous accusations about a person's > qualifications and credentials)". > > On one occasion I deliverd an indirect insult by saying that "[The > mathematical terms] "Rings" and "Models" are appropriated terms, but the > mathematicians involved would never be so stupid as to confuse them with the > real things. Marcus Hutter and yourself are doing precisely that." I did > not intend the rudeness, it slipped out as an accident of the way I was > phrasing my thoughts, and when Ben pointed out that this was rude, I > immediately accepted the blame and apologized with these words: "You got me > bang to rights there guv'nor: I apologize for the "s" word. Please > re-read, with the word "naive" substituted instead." > > -------------------------- > > So it seems that when we look at the evidence for me using this one word > "stupid" to criticize other people's ideas, there was only one occasion. > And even then it was just an accident of phrasing and it was implied, not > direct. And, to top it all, I immediately apologized for the error. > > I have just done a lot of work to discover these statistics, and I think it > would be fair to say that there is not a shred of evidence that I am in the > habit of accusing anyone of being stupid, or even that I use the word > 'stupid' to describe their ideas. > > What do you suppose would happen if we went and looked to see how many > times I call other people's ideas "ridiculous"? > > Here you are: 31 matches. Most of them neutral comments like > "ridiculously small", except for three that were pretty mild comments and > one serious argument: > > (1) "... they then produce ridiculous definitions, like Hutter's...". > > (2) "I was really trying to make the point that a statement like "The > singularity WILL end the human race" is completely ridiculous." > > (3) "That is just one example of how he pulls conclusions out of thin air. > The first time I read this paper I found the whole thing too ridiculous to > read after the first few times this happened." > > (4) One use of 'ridiculous' to respond to a damning insult and a slew of > false criticisms from Josh Hall - he had said "I find your argument > quotidian and lacking in depth...". Although I should not have been so > offended, I was. I responded to this insult by saying "You said things > about complex systems that were, quite frankly, ridiculous: Turing- machine > equivalence, for example, has nothing to do with this.". > > > So in a total of 811 posts there were only five places where I used the > word 'stupid' or the word 'ridiculous'. One was an accident that I > immediately apologized for. Two uses of 'ridiculous' were extremely mild, > not directed at the person I was talking to, and both of them were pretty > reasonable given the topic. One other use of 'ridiculous' was completely > justificable (item 2 above). > > There was just one time when I used the word 'ridiculous' in a direct and > angry attack on another person's statements, and that was after the other > person had suddenly come out with a deliberate insult. > > Do you feel that this level of abusive behavior on my part justifies your > comment that "Calling other people's ideas stupid, ridiculous etc IS the > same as calling other people the same."? Bear in mind that in the course of > yesterday evening Ed Porter threw at me a total of 14 personal insults, all > of them of a type that I have never, ever used. > > Do you really, genuinely believe that when I say something like "That is > just one example of how he pulls conclusions out of thin air. The first time > I read this paper I found the whole thing too ridiculous to read after the > first few times this happened", this behavior of mine is just as disgraceful > as comments directed straight at my face like "It is a shame your > intelligence is not freed from the childishness, and neediness, and > dishonesty of your ego", and "if you are at all concerned with honesty and > truth --- rather than personal pomposity ..."? > > > > > Richard Loosemore > > P.S. If you want me to give you a copy of all the posts I have written, so > you can analyze them for other words, please contact me off list and I will > send them to you. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > agi > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC Director of Research, SIAI [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
