I also agree with Vladimir, mailing list format is more convenient and more fun.
On 10/15/08, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also agree the list should focus on specific approaches and not on > hifalutin denials of achievability. I don't know why non-human, > specifically electronic intelligence is such a hot button issue for > some folks. It's like they'd be happier if it never happened. But why? > > On 10/15/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> This is a publicly accessible forum with searchable archives... you don't >> necessarily have to be subscribed and inundated to find those nuggets. I >> don't know any funding decision makers myself, but if I were in control of >> a >> budget I'd be using every resource at my disposal to clarify my decision. >> If >> I were considering Novamente for example I'd be looking for exactly the >> kind >> of exchanges you and Richard Loosemore (for example) have had on the list, >> to gain a better understanding of possible criticism, and because others >> may >> be able to articulate such criticism far better than me. Obviously the >> same >> goes for anyone else on the list who would look for funding... I'd want to >> see you defend your ideas, especially in the absence of peer-reviewed >> journals (something the JAGI hopes to remedy obv). >> >> Terren >> >> --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list >> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 3:37 PM >> >> >> Terren, >> >> I know a good number of VC's and government and private funding decision >> makers... and believe me, **none** of them has remotely enough extra time >> to >> wade through the amount of text that flows on this list, to find the >> nuggets >> of real intellectual interest!!! >> >> >> -- Ben G >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> One other important point... if I were a potential venture capitalist or >> some other sort of funding decision-maker, I would be on this list and >> watching the debate. I'd be looking for intelligent defense of (hopefully) >> intelligent criticism to increase my confidence about the decision to >> fund. >> This kind of forum also allows you to sort of advertise your approach to >> those who are new to the game, particularly young folks who might one day >> be >> valuable contributors, although I suppose that's possible in the more >> tightly-focused forum as well. >> >> >> --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> From: Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list >> To: >> agi@v2.listbox.com >> Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:29 AM >> >> >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> >> I think that the current focus has its pros and cons and the more narrowed >> focus you suggest would have *its* pros and cons. As you said, the con of >> the current focus is the boring repetition of various anti positions. But >> the pro of allowing that stuff is for those of us who use the conflict >> among >> competing viewpoints to clarify our own positions and gain insight. Since >> you seem to be fairly clear about your own viewpoint, it is for you a >> situation of diminishing returns (although I will point out that a recent >> blog post of yours on the subject of play was inspired, I think, by >> a point Mike Tintner made, who is probably the most obvious target of >> your >> frustration). >> >> For myself, I have found tremendous value here in the debate (which >> probably >> says a lot about the crudeness of my philosophy). I have had many new >> insights and discovered >> some false assumptions. If you narrowed the focus, I would probably leave >> (I am not offering that as a reason not to do it! :-) I would be >> disappointed, but I would understand if that's the decision you made. >> >> >> Finally, although there hasn't been much novelty among the debate (from >> your >> perspective, anyway), there is always the possibility that there will be. >> This seems to be the only public forum for AGI discussion out there (are >> there others, anyone?), so presumably there's a good chance it would show >> up >> here, and that is good for you and others actively involved in AGI >> research. >> >> >> Best, >> Terren >> >> >> --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list >> To: agi@v2.listbox.com >> >> Date: Wednesday, >> October 15, 2008, 11:01 AM >> >> >> 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 >> >> | Modify >> Your Subscription >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> agi | Archives >> >> | Modify >> Your Subscription >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> agi | Archives >> >> | Modify >> Your Subscription >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> >> | Modify >> Your Subscription >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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 >> > ------------------------------------------- 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
