*** 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). ***
FYI, Novamente has been described in a number of peer-reviewed publications ... which is where I point potential investors interested in our core tech, certainly not to mailing list archives ;-) ben On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:25 PM, 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 <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> >> <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> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription >> <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> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&>Your Subscription > <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=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com