I emphatically agree. I want to see intelligent targeted discussion of AGI. Actually, I wouldn't mind the "is AGI possible" discussion if it was smart and focused, but I think that narrowing the topic would increase the quality. Joshua
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list. > > It seems to me there are two types of conversations here: > > 1) > Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current > computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by > moderately-sized groups of people > > 2) > Discussions about whether the above is even possible -- or whether it is > impossible because of weird physics, or poorly-defined special > characteristics of human creativity, or the so-called "complex systems > problem", or because AGI intrinsically requires billions of people and > quadrillions of dollars, or whatever > > Personally I am pretty bored with all the conversations of type 2. > > It's not that I consider them useless discussions in a grand sense ... > certainly, they are valid topics for intellectual inquiry. > > But, to do anything real, you have to make **some** decisions about what > approach to take, and I've decided long ago to take an approach of trying to > engineer an AGI system. > > Now, if someone had a solid argument as to why engineering an AGI system is > impossible, that would be important. But that never seems to be the case. > Rather, what we hear are long discussions of peoples' intuitions and > opinions in this regard. People are welcome to their own intuitions and > opinions, but I get really bored scanning through all these intuitions about > why AGI is impossible. > > One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically on > **how to make AGI work**. > > If this re-focusing were done, then philosophical arguments about the > impossibility of engineering AGI in the near term would be judged **off > topic** by definition of the list purpose. > > Potentially, there could be another list, something like "agi-philosophy", > devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other discussions about > whether AGI is possible or not. I am not sure whether I feel like running > that other list ... and even if I ran it, I might not bother to read it very > often. I'm interested in new, substantial ideas related to the in-principle > possibility of AGI, but not interested at all in endless philosophical > arguments over various peoples' intuitions in this regard. > > One fear I have is that people who are actually interested in building AGI, > could be scared away from this list because of the large volume of anti-AGI > philosophical discussion. Which, I add, almost never has any new content, > and mainly just repeats well-known anti-AGI arguments (Penrose-like physics > arguments ... "mind is too complex to engineer, it has to be evolved" ... > "no one has built an AGI yet therefore it will never be done" ... etc.) > > What are your thoughts on this? > > -- Ben > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion >> on >> > this list. >> > >> > However, I don't think discussions of the form "I have all the answers, >> but >> > they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha" are particularly >> useful. >> > >> > So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this thread has >> probably >> > met its natural end, with this reference to proprietary weird-physics >> IP. >> > >> > However, speaking as list moderator, I don't find this thread so >> off-topic >> > or unpleasant as to formally kill the thread. >> > >> > -- Ben >> >> If someone doesn't want to get into a conversation with Colin about >> whatever it is that he is saying, then they should just exercise some >> self-control and refrain from doing so. >> >> I think Colin's ideas are pretty far out there. But that does not mean >> that he has never said anything that might be useful. >> >> My offbeat topic, that I believe that the Lord may have given me some >> direction about a novel approach to logical satisfiability that I am >> working on, but I don't want to discuss the details about the >> algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not, >> was never intended to be a discussion about the theory itself. I >> wanted to have a discussion about whether or not a good SAT solution >> would have a significant influence on AGI, and whether or not the >> unlikely discovery of an unexpected breakthrough on SAT would serve as >> rational evidence in support of the theory that the Lord helped me >> with the theory. >> >> Although I am skeptical about what I think Colin is claiming, there is >> an obvious parallel between his case and mine. There are relevant >> issues which he wants to discuss even though his central claim seems >> to private, and these relevant issues may be interesting. >> >> Colin's unusual reference to some solid path which cannot be yet >> discussed is annoying partly because it so obviously unfounded. If he >> had the proof (or a method), then why isn't he writing it up (or >> working it out). A similar argument was made against me by the way, >> but the difference was that I never said that I had the proof or >> method. (I did say that you should get used to a polynomial time >> solution to SAT but I never said that I had a working algorithm.) >> >> My point is that even though people may annoy you with what seems like >> unsubstantiated claims, that does not disqualify everything they have >> said. That rule could so easily be applied to anyone who posts on that >> list. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- 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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
