Matt Mahoney wrote:
Steve Richfield wrote:
How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and
automated weapons?
How about a ban on suicide bombers to level the playing field?
1984 has truly arrived.
No it hasn't. People want public surveillance.
Guess I am not people
John G. Rose wrote:
Has anyone done some analysis on cloud computing, in particular the
recent trend and coming out of clouds with multiple startup efforts in
this space? And their relationship to AGI type applications?
Or is this phenomena just geared to web server farm resource
This sounds good to me. I am much more drawn to topic #1. Topic #2 I
have seen discussed recursively and in dozens of variants multiple
places. The only thing I will add to Topic #2 is that I very seriously
doubt current human intelligence individually or collectively is
sufficient to
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Tue, 10/14/08, Charles Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems clear that without external inputs the amount of
improvement
possible is stringently limited. That is evident from
inspection. But
why the without input? The only evident reason
is to ensure the
Hmm. After the recent discussion it seems this list has turned into the
philosophical musings related to AGI list. Where is the AGI
engineering list?
- samantha
---
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed:
On Sep 9, 2008, at 7:54 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- On Mon, 9/8/08, Steve Richfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/7/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The fact is that thousands of very intelligent people have been
trying
to solve AI for the last 50 years, and most of them shared
On Sep 10, 2008, at 12:29 PM, Jiri Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Without a body, you couldn't understand the joke.
False. Would you also say that without a body, you couldn't understand
3D space ?
It depends on what is meant by, and
Abram Demski wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Benjamin Johnston
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
In any case, this whole conversation bothers me. It seems like we're
focussing on the wrong problems; like using the Theory of Relativity to
decide on an appropriate speed limit for cars in
Bob Mottram wrote:
On 10/02/2008, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems we have different ideas about what AGI is. It is not a product that
you can make and sell. It is a service that will evolve from the desire to
automate human labor, currently valued at $66 trillion per year.
Personally I would rather shoot for a world where the ever present
nano-swarm saw that I wanted a cup of good coffee and effectively
created one out of thin air on the spot, cup and all. Assuming I still
took pleasure in such archaic practices and ways of changing my internal
state of course.
On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:24 PM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/16-02/ff_aimystery?currentPage=all
Turing also committed suicide.
In his case I understand that the British government saw fit to
sentence
On Dec 26, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Charles D Hixson wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007, at 6:29 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote:
On Dec 10, 2007 6:59 AM, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dawkins trivializes religion from his comfortable first world
On Dec 26, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Stan Nilsen wrote:
Samantha Atkins wrote:
In what way? The limits of human probability computation to form
accurate opinions are rather well documented. Why wouldn't a mind
that could compute millions of times more quickly and with far
greater accuracy
On Dec 28, 2007, at 5:34 AM, John G. Rose wrote:
Well I shouldn't berate the poor dude... The subject of rationality is
pertinent though as the way that humans deal with unknown involves
irrationality especially in relation to deitical belief establishment.
Before we had all the scientific
Really Open Source software projects almost never have a total open door
policy on the contributions that are accepted. There is usually a small
group that determines whether contributed changes are good enough and fit
the overall project goals and architecture well enough.
Wikipedia is one of
On Jun 5, 2007, at 9:17 AM, J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 10:51:54 am Mark Waser wrote:
It's my belief/contention that a sufficiently complex mind will be
conscious
and feel -- regardless of substrate.
Sounds like Mike the computer in Moon is a Harsh Mistress
On Jun 1, 2007, at 12:48 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Russell Wallace wrote:
A week of effort will get you a piece of test code that runs in a
harness to prove the algorithm works. In other words, it will get
you nothing whatsoever that is of any use by itself.
On Jun 1, 2007, at 2:33 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
How about some brainstorming...?
My proposal is this:
1. People post their ideas onto a wiki and discuss them, while
carefully keeping a record of who has said what. Also, each person
suggests an amount of how much the contribution
On Jun 1, 2007, at 4:07 PM, Bob Mottram wrote:
Although I'm an open source fan I don't think I would ever sign up to
the things you're proposing. Forcing developers to pay a fee before
they use your system simply ensures that no developers will join your
project.
Yep. Calling such a
On Jun 1, 2007, at 9:16 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
On 6/2/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robbing a bank is morally unjustified because it takes away
wealth from people who are entitled to the wealth *legitimately*.
And extorting money by software patents is morally
On Jun 1, 2007, at 9:40 AM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
On 6/2/07, Russell Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But why do you accept the right of the authors of software to
make money, yet deny the right of intellectual workers who create
intellectual capital (such as *novel* algorithms
On Jun 1, 2007, at 10:14 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
Forward some decades to the problem of writing a conventional
relational database indexed only by scalar data. Show the
programmers (notice the plural - we're now at the stage where teams
are typically involved) a stack of computer
On Jun 1, 2007, at 10:25 AM, Russell Wallace wrote:
On 6/1/07, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This argument is neither here nor there. Do you need CS papers from
2057 today because the problem is not an implementation detail
today? You are still using implementation detail in a
YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
Hi Ben and others,
Let's analyse the opensource vs closed-source issue in more detail...
(limericks are not arugments!)
1. I guess the biggest turn-off about opensource is that it may allow
competitors to look at our source and steal our ideas / algorithms.
We
On 5/31/07, J. Andrew Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 30, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:
J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
All patents are ideas and algorithms.
Not quite. Would you patent the quadratic equation? How about
Newtonian approximation? Means of computing logarithms
On May 10, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
Ben, I imagine, more or less knows the open-source truth in talking
about an
AGI Manhattan Project. But even that would be too small. The whole
world -
the whole Internet - will have to be involved..
I don't really agree with this.
On May 10, 2007, at 6:49 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:
Well there are two phases, framework and content. The framework is
as you say: it needs to be a cathedral. The content needs to be of
volume such that only a whole industry can create it: definitely a
bazaar. The hard part then is
On Apr 23, 2007, at 2:05 PM, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. wrote:
On Monday 23 April 2007 15:40, Lukasz Stafiniak wrote:
... An AGI working with bigger numbers had better discovered binary
numbers. Could an AGI do it? Could it discover rational numbers? (It
would initially believe that irrational
On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 22:48 -0400, Ben Goertzel wrote:
Samantha Atknis wrote:
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Regarding languages, I personally am a big fan of both Ruby and
Haskell. But, for Novamente we use C++ for reasons of scalability.
I am curious as to how C++ helps scalability. What
Richard Loosemore wrote:
Aki Iskandar wrote:
Hello -
I'm new on this email list. I'm very interested in AI / AGI - but do
not have any formal background at all. I do have a degree in
Finance, and have been a professional consultant / developer for the
last 9 years (including having
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sat, Feb 17, 2007 at 08:24:21AM -0800, Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
What is the nature of your language and development environment? Is it
in the same neighborhood as imperative OO languages such as Python and
Java? Or something different like Prolog?
There are
Eugen Leitl wrote:
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 12:40:03AM -0800, Samantha Atkins wrote:
Really? I question whether you can get anywhere near the same level of
reflection and true data - code equivalence in any other standard
language. I would think this capability might be very important
Mark Waser wrote:
And, from a practical programmatic way of having code generate code,
those are the only two ways. The way you mentioned - a text file -
you still have to call the compiler (which you can do through the
above namespaces), but then you still have to bring the dll into the
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote:
If you know in advance what code you plan on writing, choosing a
language should not be a big deal. This is as true of AI as any other
programming task.
It is still a big deal. You want to chose a language that allows you to
express your intent as concisely and
On Nov 30, 2006, at 12:21 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote:
Recursive Self Inmprovement?
The answer is yes, but with some qualifications.
In general RSI would be useful to the system IF it were done in such
a way as to preserve its existing motivational priorities.
How could the system
On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:15 PM, Hank Conn wrote:
Yes, now the point being that if you have an AGI and you aren't in a
sufficiently fast RSI loop, there is a good chance that if someone
else were to launch an AGI with a faster RSI loop, your AGI would
lose control to the other AGI where the
On Jul 31, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Philip Goetz wrote:
I think the 2 Google founders appear to be among the only
dot-billionaires who might put their money into AGI rather than into,
say, building a spaceship (Bezos, Carmack, that eBay guy).
Remember that Palm guy, Jeff Hawkins? Well, maybe he
No mail seen since 6/30. Testing.
---
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
38 matches
Mail list logo
