Steve, I don't know why you are taking this opportunity to attack my own particular approach to AGI, because that is **not** what this thread is about.
I am talking about -- hypothetically, I'm not at all sure it's a good idea, I'm just raising the issue for discussion!! -- separating two different **categories** of discussion: 1) Specifics of attempts to engineer human-level AGI on current computers 2) General discussion of the philosophy of AGI, and the in-principle viability of engineering AGI on current computers My own research is not the only thing falling into Category 1. And, as it happens, I have published a number of books and papers falling into Category 2 So, I'm not trying to force my ideas on anyone nor suggesting to constrain the discussion in line with my personal opinions -- I'm suggesting potentially, maybe, that it might make more sense to have some way of separating the two broad **categories** of discussion defined above as 1 and 2. I am personally interested in both 1 and 2, but I'm interested in devoting more of my time and attention to 1 rather than 2 at this stage in my life. I keep trying to be VERY clear on these points yet people keep misinterpreting me due to thinking I have some sort of hidden agenda. It's not the case. -- Ben G On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Ben, et al, > > Those who have been in the computer biz for more than just a few years know > for a moral certainty that the difference between successful and failed > projects very often lies in the feasibility study. Further, most of the > largest computer debacles in history had early objectors on feasibility > grounds, and these people were ignored. > > Rubbing my own crystal ball (momentary pause for polishing), I think I see > the future of AGI, and it goes something like this: Like so many other > grossly under-funded efforts, the present efforts here will either fail, or > be superseded by someone else's highly funded effort that borrows heavily > from your work. My BIG concern is whether a failure here will poison other > future efforts for decades to come, much as perceptrons and shallow parsing > were poisoned. > > I believe that the following path that you are apparent on will > be COMPLETELY disastrous, not only to your own efforts, but very likely to > the entire future of AGI: > 1. Fail to advance any substantial argument of feasibility. > 2. Refuse to directly address various challenges on feasibility grounds > advanced by others. > 3. Completely cut off all feasibility discussion. > 4. Fail for any of the countless reasons that have been discussed here on > this forum, not to mention personal limitations (time, money, health, etc). > > Note here that it is VERY important that if you fail, that the failure NOT > be directly attributable to AGI, but rather be to flaws in your particular > approach. Hiding these flaws only dooms the future of AGI. The present > format lays these bare and presents no such problems. > > If you do indeed cement this questionable path, AGI's only apparent > long-term hope for success is that you fall into obscurity and are > completely forgotten, not that I necessarily think that this will happen. > > Hopefully you can see that it is in no one's best interest to effectively > present the world with a choice between you and AGI, which the decision you > are now considering could do. > > Also, addressing Terren Suydam's comments, no potential investor would EVER > give anyone a dime, who had cut off feasibility discussion. Such a decision > will forever cut you off from future investment money, probably for > everything that you will ever do, and hence doom your efforts to obscurity > no matter how great your technical success might be. > > But, what the heck, these are all just feasibility arguments, and you want > to cut these off. > > 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. Perhaps Matt or > someone would like to separately monitor those postings. > > Steve Richfield > =============== > On 10/15/08, 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> > <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
