my 2 cents worth (both to Mark YKY):
think of the people you are trying to co-opt onto the project. Some of us (most
mid-lifers) have *some* income stream (regular job or otherwise) but are
extremely committed to AGI as one of our main purposes of our life. Ideally we
would want a rich donor
OK. I'm confused. You said both
lets say we don't program beliefs in consciousness or free will . . . .
The AGI will look at these concepts rationally. It will conclude that
they do not exist because human behavior can be explained without their
existence.
AND
I do believe in
Hi Jean-Paul,
I'm not sure that I understand your point but let me try to answer it
anyways (and you'll tell me if I missed :-).
I qualify as one of those mid-lifers but, due to impending college
expenses, I NEED my current non-AGI income stream. I'm not hugely motivated
by money
OK... just a few quick points to add to this:
1. *Inclusion of code*. I believe AGI would *best* be achieved by a
combination of theory and craft. A joint project / consortium should
actively encourage people to experiment with AGI code. Also, pure theory is
very dry, having code will
PSS Ben I loved reading your blog. Pls keep it up. If you ever have time,
let us know why, of the 3 different AGI approaches you entertained, you went
with Novamente instead of the Hebbian neural net (and the theorem proving
one)... us scruffies would like to know... is it just your
4. *Accept members as broadly as possible*. A typical AGI company
usually interviews potential candidates, sign NDAs, and then see if their
skills align with the company's project. After such a screening
many candidates with good ideas may not be hired. The consortium is to
remedy this by
One way in which you might be able to make use of many members who may
be interested in AGI but lack the background knowledge or programming
skills might be to develop scripting languages or IDEs which would
allow volunteers (payed or otherwise) to generate training scenarios
or evaluate test
Yeah, we often try to get newbies involved with the AGISim open-source 3D
sim world project...
But that project is not yet mature enough to be friendly to anyone who is
not a pretty good programmer. Just getting AGISim to compile, at the
moment, is kind of a bitch...
-- Ben
On 6/3/07, Bob
It needs a Visual Studio 2005 Solution file in the source distro. Just
having that would offer much encouragement to would-be developers.
Does this thing actually talk to Novamente BTW? Though sockets? What's it
doing?
John
From: Benjamin Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
But
On 6/3/07, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It needs a Visual Studio 2005 Solution file in the source distro. Just
having that would offer much encouragement to would-be developers…
Well, it's an open-source project, so feel free to create such a file ;-)
[As I use OSX and Ubuntu, it
On 6/3/07, Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One way in which you might be able to make use of many members who may
be interested in AGI but lack the background knowledge or programming
skills might be to develop scripting languages or IDEs which would
allow volunteers (payed or otherwise) to
YKY and Mark Waser ...
About innovative organizational structures for AGI projects, let me
suggest the following
Perhaps you could
A)
make the AGI codebase itself open-source, but using a license other than
GPL, which
-- makes the source open
-- makes the source free for noncommercial use
Thx for your response, Ben (and for the many other contributions on the
list!)
Re Hebbian neural – I assume you could calculate an eigenvalue matrix or
some other heuristic approximation (to matrix**n) to speed up
calculations. However, the matrix changes dynamically each time your AGI
learns.
Can people rate the following things?
1. quick $$, ie salary
2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp
3. freedom to do what they want
4. fairness
5. friendly friends
6. the project looks like a winner overall
7. knowing that the project is charitable
8. special AGI features they look for
Sorry, some typos in the last post:
3. freedom to do what _you_ want
8. special AGI features _you_ look for (eg a special type of friendliness,
pls specify)
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
On 6/4/07, Benjamin Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A)
make the AGI codebase itself open-source, but using a license other than
GPL, which
-- makes the source open
-- makes the source free for noncommercial use
-- gives the rights to control commercialization of the codebase to the
Clues. Plural.
--
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
--- Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I'm confused. You said both
lets say we don't program beliefs in consciousness or free will . . . .
The AGI will look at these concepts rationally. It will conclude that
they do not exist because human behavior can be explained without their
The most important thing by far is having an AGI design that seems
feasible.
Only after that (very difficult) requirement is met, do any of the others
matter.
-- Ben G
On 6/3/07, YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can people rate the following things?
1. quick $$, ie salary
2.
For me, wanting to make a thinking machine is a far stronger motivator
than wanting to get rich.
Of course, I'd like to get rich, but getting rich is quite ordinary and
boring
compared to launching a positive Singularity ;-p
Being rich for the last N years before Singularity is better than not
My approach is to accept the conflicting evidence and not attempt to
resolve it.
Yes, indeed, that does explain much.
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
important -- 6 which would necessarily include 8 and 9
potentially important -- 10 (average level is a poor gauge, if there are
sufficient highly-expert/superstar people you can afford an equal number of
relatively non-expert people, if you don't have any real superstars, you're
dead in the
Hi Ben,
Great suggestion but, fundamentally, I don't want the codebase to be
open-source.
I understand this is not a perfect arrangement, but it seems to me much less
profoundly flawed than the other alternatives that have been bounced
around...
Could you point out what you see as
On Jun 3, 2007, at 3:13 PM, YKY (Yan King Yin) wrote:
The problem is that I still want to get rich, and to make XYZ a non-
profit would be dishonest and may result in some awkward
contradictions later. (Unless my personality changes... which is
also possible).
To put it really simply,
My reasons for joining a2i2 could only be expressed as subportions of
6 and 8 (possibly 9 and 4).
I joined largely on the strength of my impression of Peter. My
interest in employment was to work as closely as possible on general
artificial intelligence, and he wanted me to work for him on
your suggestion is basically a dictatorship by you ;-)
Oh! I am horribly offended.:-o
That reaction is basically why I was planning on grabbing a bunch of other
trustworthy people to serve as joint owners (as previously mentioned).
without any clear promise of compensation in future
No
YKY wrote:
The problem is that I still want to get rich, and to make
XYZ a non-profit would be dishonest and may result in some
awkward contradictions later. (Unless my personality
changes... which is also possible).
You might get rich by writing a general software engine to make this
So, the share allocation is left undetermined, to be determined by the AGI
someday?
That's what I'm saying currently. The reality is that my project actually has
a clear intermediate product that would cleanly allow all current contributors
to determine an intermediate distribution -- but
You might get rich by writing a general software engine to make this
consortium idea work -- and it will take software, some very complex and
secure software to track and value the contributions of lots of people.
where
people or companies can form *any* sort of idea consortium they like
Well my feeling is that the odd compensation scheme, even if very clearly
presented, would turn off a VC or even an angel investor ...
The only thing that is odd about the compensation scheme is how you're
determining the allocation of the non-VC/investor shares/profits.
Why
Because, unless they take a majority share, they want to know who it is
they're dealing with... i.e. who is controlling the company
One of the most important things an investor looks at is THE PEOPLE who are
controlling the company, and in your scheme, it is not clear who that is...
Yes, you
So you are going to make a special set of corporate bylaws that disentangle
shares from control?
Hmmm...
Something like: the initial trustworthy owners are given temporary
trusteeship over the shares, but are then bound to distribute them according
to the wishes of the AGI once the AGI passes
--- YKY (Yan King Yin) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can people rate the following things?
1. quick $$, ie salary
2. long-term $$, ie shares in a successful corp
3. freedom to do what they want
4. fairness
5. friendly friends
6. the project looks like a winner overall
7. knowing that the
On Jun 3, 2007, at 6:20 PM, Benjamin Goertzel wrote:
So you are going to make a special set of corporate bylaws that
disentangle shares from control?
Hmmm...
Something like: the initial trustworthy owners are given
temporary trusteeship over the shares, but are then bound to
distribute
On Jun 3, 2007, at 5:52 PM, Mark Waser wrote:
So, the share allocation is left undetermined, to be determined
by the AGI someday?
That's what I'm saying currently. The reality is that my project
actually has a clear intermediate product that would cleanly allow
all current
35 matches
Mail list logo
