Steve Richfield said: >May I suggest that you ask people to put something like [agi feasibility] in >their subject >lines and allow things to otherwise continue as they are. Then, when you fail, >it won't >poison other AGI efforts.
This is a strange and quite profoundly disheartening statement. What would compel you to use such a tone? For my part I'd like to see less trolls fed, and more bugs squished On 10/15/08, Eric Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
