Matt, Colin, et al, The REAL underlying problem is that AGI started too soon - there just isn't enough known to be able to "fill in the blanks" and build generally intelligent systems. Neuroscience needed more time and money to provide this information.
However, the way things have been going, neuroscience would take FOREVER to get there - like centuries. I have been involved for half a century, and there sure hasn't been a half-century of progress. The problem with neuroscience is that they don't have the right tools - because their VW&R Catalog doesn't list high-resolution 3-D non-destructive UV microscopes that allow you to actually WATCH neurons in high-resolution operation, etc. I figured out how to build the microscope. Everyone who has looked at my proposal perceives a different problem - usually while dismissing the problems perceived by others. The bottom line, if you embrace the idea that at least half the people will be at least half right, is that the microscope will do INCREDIBLE things - but like all laboratory instruments it will have limitations that can probably be worked around, like it might not be able to functionally diagram entire brains, etc. Further, we can't know just what those limitations will be until we build it. There have been proposals by others for new tools to open up neuroscience, like machines to automatically serially section small (mouse?) brains for scanning, etc. The challenge here is to cut thousands of sections without damaging ANY of them. Colin, what sort of tool(s) can YOU imagine to facilitate digging out how things work? The point here is that there seems to be NO money to build this stuff, because there is no present market, because there is presently NOTHING like this stuff, etc. In short, the ENTIRE field of venture investing is fucked - and is taking out AGI in the process. All that seems to be needed are a few million dollars and a couple of years of time by some bright guys, like some of the folks on this forum. Google spends more that that on coffee. Where is Kurzweil? Where is Bazos? Where is Gates? Ben has started a bandwagon going nowhere other than AGI Winter, and all the big-money guys seem to be riding that bandwagon. and ... I am sitting here watching this slow motion train wreck. Depressing. Does anyone here have a few million dollars to spare - to make quadrillions of dollars in the future? Steve On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:33 PM Basile Starynkevitch < [email protected]> wrote: > > On 6/29/19 7:06 AM, Basile Starynkevitch wrote: > > > > On 6/29/19 5:21 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: > >>> An AGI megaproject would require thousands of people working during > >>> several decades on it. Costing tens of billions of US$ or ???. > >>> > >>> As far as I know, it has not started. Even worse, I cannot name any > >>> megaproject today in the information technology domain. > >> > >> uh, what planet are u on? > >> > >> > http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/private-equity-investment-in-artificial-intelligence.pdf > >> > >> https://www.thetechedvocate.org/six-countries-leading-the-ai-race/ > >> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2019/02/12/venture-capital-funding-for-artificial-intelligence-startups-hit-record-high-in-2018/#11ad12a141f7 > >> > >> > https://www.statista.com/statistics/607716/worldwide-artificial-intelligence-market-revenues/ > >> > >> > https://secure.wealthdaily.com/187581?device=c&keyword=ai%20intelligence&gclid=CjwKCAjw9dboBRBUEiwA7VrrzTkh6YVG_yRrATxn6eInrUs-oMooia6fWUg5_JVCuGQnrulIQwt1ZhoCY28QAvD_BwE > >> > >> > https://www.google.com/search?sa=N&q=global+ai+investment&tbm=isch&source=univ&ved=2ahUKEwjombvw3Y3jAhWKneAKHcNnAkc4ChCwBHoECAUQAQ&biw=1060&bih=742 > >> > >> > > > > But AI is not AGI, it today is mostly big data and machine learning. > > > > > > I mentioned AGI, not AI. That makes a huge difference. > > > > > > Notice that what was called AI in the 1980s (the goal -or dream- of > > achieving human like intelligence in some artificial system) is today > > called AGI. This is a change of terminology. > > > > > > And, as far as I know, there is no today a single software system on > > which tens of thousands computer scientist are working continuously > > for an entire career, e.g. several decades. > > > > Again, compare the current large AI projects to something like ITER, > > or the Apollo program. We have no -single- that large and that > > ambitious software project on Earth. > > > > And while I did mention The Mythical Man-Month previously, I forgot to > mention an important phrase from it: If one woman can make a baby in 9 > months, 9 women won't make a baby in 1 month. > > The equivalent is probably true for AGI, replacing months by decades. A > hundred of ambitious AI projects won't advance AGI, even if run in > parallel. Exactly like ten thousands of rocket clubs firing rockets to > 50 km don't improve any human to Mars space mission. > > We don't have the social & political structures to even start an > ambitious single software project with 10000 computer scientists working > for several decades. And we might not even know what organizational > structure could make such a project possible. > > So I don't expect AGI to come soon. > > -- > Basile STARYNKEVITCH == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile > opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes > Bourg La Reine, France > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T87761d322a3126b1-M32c14d2ef349d9f1bf38e073 Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
