Honestly, if the idea is to wave our hands at one another's ideas then let's at least see something on the table. I'm happy to discuss my work with natural language parsing and mood evaluation for low-bandwidth human mimicry, for instance, because it has amounted to thousands of lines of occasionally-fungible code thus far. It's not on sourceforge because it's still a mess but I'll pastebin it if you ask.
I don't understand how people wallow in their theories for so long that they become a matter of dogma, with the need for proof removed, and the urgency of producing and testing an implementation subverted by smugness and egotism. The people here worth listening to don't have to make excuses. They can show their work. I see a lot of evasiveness and circular arguments going on, where people are seeking some kind of theoretical high-ground without giving away anything that could bolster another theory. It's time-wastingly self-interested. We won't achieve consensus through half-explained denials and reversals. This list isn't a battle of theorems for supremacy. It is for collaboration. My 2 cents. The internet archive seems to have shed about half the material I produced since the nineties, so I do apologize for being so pissed off >_< On 10/15/08, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> From: Terren Suydam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> 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). >> > > Unfortunately there's going to be funding thrown at AGI that has nothing to > do with any sort of great theory or concrete engineering plans. Software and > technology funding many times doesn't work that way. It's rather arbitrary. > I hope the right people get the right opportunities. > > John > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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
