[agi] estimated cost of Seed AI
At 20:54 11.06.05 -0400, you wrote: What is the estimated cost of Seed AI? Dan one person 10 hours/day IQ 180+ very good memory (photographic memory) high frustration-tolerance 1000-2000 $/month (To keep mind free from waste and unnecessary thought) hardware 5000 $/year it will take 5-10 years (starting now) it will take 1-7 years (someone working on it already) Imho, its more like the development of H1-H4 sea clocks (John Harrison) cu Alex --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [agi] (AGI) Toddlers hold promisses like AGI
My point is, from the view of a business investor who wants a likely chance of high profits within a few years, narrow AI projects will nearly always look better than AGI projects. Business investors generally don't like technology risk and AGI presents a lot of it... Because it's novel and complex. However these generalities will have their exceptions ... Fortunately... Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/12/05 5:30 am To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subj: [agi] (AGI) Toddlers hold promisses like AGI infants and toddlers don't have a lot of marketable skills. Infants and toddlers offer the many years of promises... Infants and toddlers do have the ability to learn that is more than most computers now a days. They have a lot of potential if brought to a high knowledge level. Even a small gain over a year can mount to a large number over many years and in early times, the learning curve will steep. Dan G. From : Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : agi@v2.listbox.com Subject : Re: [agi] (AGI) Start up cost... Date : Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:17:18 -0400 Even a simple start up with some expert systems and a good knowledge base could possible start to predict economics of markets, which could be capitalized on to cover further development cost. Once the accuracy of the predictions become above a certain point then you will have many investors... This is a viable idea, but it has nothing to do with building a baby AGI except as a possible way of obtaining funding for the latter project It's a misconception, IMO, that there is any reasonably direct path to AGI that works via incremental improvements building on a profitable narrow-AI application (like this one). This is analogous to the fact that human infants and toddlers don't have a lot of marketable skills. -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname¢.listbox.com --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] estimated cost of Seed AI
Alexander E. Richter wrote: At 20:54 11.06.05 -0400, you wrote: What is the estimated cost of Seed AI? Dan one person 10 hours/day IQ 180+ very good memory (photographic memory) high frustration-tolerance 1000-2000 $/month (To keep mind free from waste and unnecessary thought) hardware 5000 $/year it will take 5-10 years (starting now) it will take 1-7 years (someone working on it already) Imho, its more like the development of H1-H4 sea clocks (John Harrison) cu Alex More or less me too. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: [agi] (AGI) Toddlers hold promisses like AGI
Investors want the most amount of return for the least amount of investment, and little risk. Seems funny that so many would benefit by AGI thru Health, Wealth and the Wisdom of AGI but no one wants to fund it. But the old axiom of build a better mouse trap and the world will beat a path to your door. I do believe Seed AI is possable even if on a very low learning rate of today, but you have to crawl before you walk... Mistakes will be made... Anyone who tries will make some. The question now is what is the take off rate? What would be the measurement units of AGI? Dan G From : Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : agi@v2.listbox.com, agi@v2.listbox.com Subject : RE: [agi] (AGI) Toddlers hold promisses like AGI Date : 12 Jun 2005 09:19:44 -0700 My point is, from the view of a business investor who wants a likely chance of high profits within a few years, narrow AI projects will nearly always look better than AGI projects. Business investors generally don't like technology risk and AGI presents a lot of it... Because it's novel and complex. However these generalities will have their exceptions ... Fortunately... Ben -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 6/12/05 5:30 am To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subj: [agi] (AGI) Toddlers hold promisses like AGI infants and toddlers don't have a lot of marketable skills. Infants and toddlers offer the many years of promises... Infants and toddlers do have the ability to learn that is more than most computers now a days. They have a lot of potential if brought to a high knowledge level. Even a small gain over a year can mount to a large number over many years and in early times, the learning curve will steep. Dan G. From : Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : agi@v2.listbox.com Subject : Re: [agi] (AGI) Start up cost... Date : Sun, 12 Jun 2005 01:17:18 -0400 Even a simple start up with some expert systems and a good knowledge base could possible start to predict economics of markets, which could be capitalized on to cover further development cost. Once the accuracy of the predictions become above a certain point then you will have many investors... This is a viable idea, but it has nothing to do with building a baby AGI except as a possible way of obtaining funding for the latter project It's a misconception, IMO, that there is any reasonably direct path to AGI that works via incremental improvements building on a profitable narrow-AI application (like this one). This is analogous to the fact that human infants and toddlers don't have a lot of marketable skills. -- Ben --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname¢.listbox.com --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] an AGI by Minsky and Singh
On Jun 12, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: But, your assertion that any competently articulated, competently led AGI project should be able to fairly easily raise $5M in venture funding is *also* based on a basket of assumptions, which you didn't make explicit in your message! Yes, very true. There is no such thing as a context-free opinion. :-) However, I also used non-AI development and implementation metrics that would apply to AI development and implementation to build my assumption. The new part of AGI development is a new design space from a computer science perspective, but the fundamental mechanics of implementation of a new design space will not be that different and a lot of the ancillary stuff is well-described. If it takes a long time to implement, it will be because parts of the AGI design are poorly described such that no one knows if/how they will work. The only potential money sink that I consider plausible is very large and exotic hardware, but the necessity of this does not seem apparent to many people actually working on it. High-end vanilla hardware seems to be what most people require. And my suggestion is that the path from here to AGI is almost inevitably going to involve a few years of research-oriented engineering/experimentation prior to any period of more deterministic product-development-like engineering/tuning. The differences in opinion seem to revolve around whether or not useful products can be spun off the main technology track as the technology is developed. While I would agree that it can be a diversion of sorts, a carefully selected mezzanine product target should be reasonably doable. How feasible this actually is is a function of the architecture and design to a great extent. I'm not really sure how you're defining these terms, in this context. In terms of creating AGI, as far as I'm concerned, even if you're in late stage development of your *software system*, until you've demonstrated robust human-level AGI behaviors, you're still doing speculative research This is only fair given the demonstrated difficulty of the AGI problem. I apply this to my own work as well as yours and anyone else's I was referring to the ability to demonstrate robust AGI-ish behaviors in implementation. It does not have to be a completely implemented or solved system if one can demonstrate genuinely new capabilities -- this will have intrinsic business value AGI or not. In other words, the pitch should be no less than we can deliver this wicked coolness *right now*, and with some additional funding we can greatly extend the envelope to more wicked coolness. The problem is that the initial demonstration of wicked coolness has to be a clear differentiator from other half-baked AI ideas, most of which claim to show some type of vague novelty very early on. It is not easy. And, VC's criteria for indistinguishability in this context are generally quite crude... Heh, yes. The problem of education is very real and there is relatively little one can do about this. Hence the value of having a bright shiny object for them to fixate on immediately. Very few people grok the current theory space (which is somewhat independent of personal theoretical biases), and unlike nanotech, the field is neither straightforward or obvious from basic principles that everyone understands. For almost everyone, it really *is* a crap shoot. cheers, j. andrew rogers --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[agi] Functioinally Interwoven AGI
The design space of the future for AGI is the many specialized AGI's running on many computers and the feedback from those being functionally interwoven into a new and better AGI. Dan G From : J.Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To : agi@v2.listbox.com Subject : Re: [agi] an AGI by Minsky and Singh Date : Sun, 12 Jun 2005 10:07:39 -0700 On Jun 12, 2005, at 2:02 AM, Ben Goertzel wrote: But, your assertion that any competently articulated, competently led AGI project should be able to fairly easily raise $5M in venture funding is *also* based on a basket of assumptions, which you didn't make explicit in your message! Yes, very true. There is no such thing as a context-free opinion. :-) However, I also used non-AI development and implementation metrics that would apply to AI development and implementation to build my assumption. The new part of AGI development is a new design space from a computer science perspective, but the fundamental mechanics of implementation of a new design space will not be that different and a lot of the ancillary stuff is well-described. If it takes a long time to implement, it will be because parts of the AGI design are poorly described such that no one knows if/how they will work. The only potential money sink that I consider plausible is very large and exotic hardware, but the necessity of this does not seem apparent to many people actually working on it. High-end vanilla hardware seems to be what most people require. And my suggestion is that the path from here to AGI is almost inevitably going to involve a few years of research-oriented engineering/experimentation prior to any period of more deterministic product-development-like engineering/tuning. The differences in opinion seem to revolve around whether or not useful products can be spun off the main technology track as the technology is developed. While I would agree that it can be a diversion of sorts, a carefully selected mezzanine product target should be reasonably doable. How feasible this actually is is a function of the architecture and design to a great extent. I'm not really sure how you're defining these terms, in this context. In terms of creating AGI, as far as I'm concerned, even if you're in late stage development of your *software system*, until you've demonstrated robust human-level AGI behaviors, you're still doing speculative research This is only fair given the demonstrated difficulty of the AGI problem. I apply this to my own work as well as yours and anyone else's I was referring to the ability to demonstrate robust AGI-ish behaviors in implementation. It does not have to be a completely implemented or solved system if one can demonstrate genuinely new capabilities -- this will have intrinsic business value AGI or not. In other words, the pitch should be no less than we can deliver this wicked coolness *right now*, and with some additional funding we can greatly extend the envelope to more wicked coolness. The problem is that the initial demonstration of wicked coolness has to be a clear differentiator from other half-baked AI ideas, most of which claim to show some type of vague novelty very early on. It is not easy. And, VC's criteria for indistinguishability in this context are generally quite crude... Heh, yes. The problem of education is very real and there is relatively little one can do about this. Hence the value of having a bright shiny object for them to fixate on immediately. Very few people grok the current theory space (which is somewhat independent of personal theoretical biases), and unlike nanotech, the field is neither straightforward or obvious from basic principles that everyone understands. For almost everyone, it really *is* a crap shoot. cheers, j. andrew rogers --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [agi] estimated cost of Seed AI
Could well be... Right now the Novamente design is a little too big to be a comfortable one-man job even for a genius, but it's off only by a factor of 5 or so, which makes it very plausible that a one-man-sized AGI design exists and even NM with all its complexities could plausibly be completed to clever-toddler-dom by a team of me plus one awesome programmer with 3-7 years of total focus ben -Original Message- From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky Date: 6/12/05 9:38 am To: agi@v2.listbox.com Subj: Re: [agi] estimated cost of Seed AI Alexander E. Richter wrote: At 20:54 11.06.05 -0400, you wrote: What is the estimated cost of Seed AI? Dan one person 10 hours/day IQ 180+ very good memory (photographic memory) high frustration-tolerance 1000-2000 $/month (To keep mind free from waste and unnecessary thought) hardware 5000 $/year it will take 5-10 years (starting now) it will take 1-7 years (someone working on it already) Imho, its more like the development of H1-H4 sea clocks (John Harrison) cu Alex More or less me too. -- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/ Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
