Russell, You have asked a "simple" question, that has a somewhat complicated answer. First some background...
Right now, AGI is generally seen as having about as much social benefit as rapid cold fusion, read that: make-em-yourself in your bathroom hydrogen bombs. The only people both rich enough and stupid enough to fund this sort of research at a great enough level to ever succeed are the military. No technology remains superior forever. Just look at our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As soon as an Iraqi weapons expert realized that you could destroy our main battle tanks by burying an artillery shell pointed upwards, and that a particular IED design could destroy Striker vehicles from the side, we lost our technological edge. To be effective, military technology must be kept secret and locked up until needed, after which it quickly "spoils" like so much rotting fruit. Any general understands this, yet they do stupid things to avoid the fate of Four Star General Eric Shinseki, who accurately explained what would really happen if we invaded Iraq, and was paid for his valuable advice by being fired. Hence, until the AGI-related hazards issue is wrung out to a satisfactory conclusion (if there is a satisfactory conclusion to be had), it takes an act of fiscal stupidity to fund AGI-related research. OK, are we now all on board that we need to find a rich idiot? Fortunately, there seems to be no shortage of them. My plan is a long-term plan, not a short term plan to push out a proposal and collect the cash. My long-term plan is to spread the knowledge of the prospect of a diagramming machine, along with enough details to generally support that knowledge, and wait for the present AGI exuberance to run its course. Ben's (and others) views will eventually mature - or he/they will become homeless for lack of funding. Either way, a better understanding of the difficulties at hand will emerge during the next few years. Eventually, people will start asking "How are we going to ask for more funding, when everything we have done so far has led nowhere?" Eventually, out of the failures of present AGI efforts, the diagramming machine will emerge as the ONLY believable prospect for the salvation of AGI. In short, I am expecting a Perceptron-like failure of present AGI efforts, and am preparing to salvage SOMETHING from that failure, rather than simply letting it all go to the recyclers. Like the Perceptron, I expect the failure to be QUICK, like in weeks or months rather than years. Hence, the alternative MUST be generally known if it is going to be quick enough to help intercept AGI on its way to the recyclers. AGI is proceeding along the MOST perilous path of ANY technological endeavor in history, because success requires solving SO many nasty theoretical problems. AGI desperately needs SOME insurance that it won't be trashed by the first brick wall that it runs into, and the diagrammer is the ONLY present prospect for insurance. It seems to be to be INCREDIBLY stupid and reckless to everyone's careers and aspirations not to be SEEKING such insurance. The obvious parallel in history was when Hitler REFUSED to provide his armies with winter clothing when they invaded Russia, simply because their plans didn't include remaining in Russia for the winter. Only ~1% survived. THIS is the same sort of logic that Ben and the others who organize the AGI conferences are running on. I wonder if even 1% of their careers will survive. If Ben found my proposal deficient (as he should, as there are plenty of weaknesses in it), then he should see that better is found, advance it as an initial step and start looking for better, solicit alternatives, or do SOMETHING to seek the insurance that AGI so desperately needs. Ok, so on to your specific comments: On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Russell Wallace <[email protected]>wrote: > Fair enough, so what's your suggestion for a target audience who would > both benefit from your proposal and have money to spend on it? Right now this minute, there is probably NO ONE who will fund this, though there may be a good market for a stripped down model that can observe the real-time chemistry in a few active neurons, and information gained from using such an instrument would be invaluable in building a full-blown diagrammer. These would probably cost about as much to make and sell as high-end scanning electron microscopes - after spending a few million dollars on fairly straightforward R&D to get ready for production. This might be an alternative funding path, **IF** I could find an instrument company who is interested in the entire path to a diagrammer. Otherwise, the technology would get all tied up in patents to actually BLOCK the development of a diagrammer (for another 17 years). Unfortunately, instrument companies have suffered MORE than other companies during the recession, because new instrument purchases are the first things to go when research budgets get tight. Hence, as of this moment, I see absolutely no prospect for near-term funding. You do appreciate that if I had the pull to get a few million dollars > allocated to an area of research, I would already be using it? That is the same point that Ben made - that I would be "eating from the same trough" as AGI. However, I don't think so, as the underlying presumptions to build a diagrammer are almost exactly the opposite of those who try building an AGI without a diagrammer. On a side note, I expect some good fallout to come from present AGI efforts - to support the internal image recognition requirements of a diagrammer. In other words, we on this mailing list fail the second criterion, so > haranguing us about the first one is just procrastination. > **ALL** I have been asking for is an opportunity to present at the AGI conferences and otherwise educate people on what to do when the "fire alarm" (all funding stops) sounds, besides dropping everything and running for the exits. An alternative scenario is that instead of a "bursting bubble", AGI gradually withers away, until someone decides to resurrect it by funding the diagrammer. This wouldn't require so much action now to prepare for. I am just covering my bases by periodically mentioning this. So, "your money is no good here". I don't expect a dime from present AGI-related sources. I also hope that none of them ever run into me on the highway, because I suspect that they are ALL uninsured. I suspect that the AGI folks must first smell smoke before they even consider fire insurance, so I am just waiting, watching, sniffing, and sometimes posting about this. Maybe in a few years... Thanks again for your comments. Steve ============== > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Russell Wallace < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I think I would reason as follows: these days drug companies face almost >>> terminally crippling costs testing candidate drugs. Leaving aside the >>> political component to this, a large part of the technical component is >>> that each test gives you so little information. If we had better monitoring >>> of what's actually going on in the brains of the subjects of a drug test, >>> that could be worth an awful lot of money. Might the drugs industry be a >>> possible source of funding on that basis? >>> >> >> I like your always-fresh ways of looking at things. The challenge here is >> that you can't diagram LIVE brains, just dead ones that are pureed in the >> process. Further, drugs tend to make subtle changes in characteristics that >> do NOT affect the diagram, so I suspect that selling it to the drug people >> would be a really hard sell. >> >> My proposal leverages from what is known in UV microscopy, but even that >> is falling into disuse under the onslaught of drug-related genetic >> "research". >> >> A bit more explanation. My friend and former employer John is both the >> Chairman of the Department of Neurological Surgery and is the Director of >> Research at a major university medical center, so he is right at Ground >> Zero in all this. OK, so I was stupid enough to think that I could discuss >> how research was being misdirected by the drug companies controlling the >> Department of Health, but I quickly discovered that I was "preaching to the >> choir". He can't get ANY funding for the things he personally sees as >> critical to health care right now, let alone projects like mine with more >> distant payoffs. He is still an active neurosurgeon and is now forced to >> operate on patients who clearly need better procedures than anything he >> presently knows to do (most operations of all kinds are "cook book" >> procedures), but he can't even free up any "loose change" to do the little >> research needed to save his own patient's lives!!! >> >> "Take a walk down the halls and look around. Those shielded laboratories >> with their copper curtains that you used to work in are now all wasted >> doing genetic research, and as the Director of Research I can't do a thing >> about it." John >> >> Hopefully you can see my point here. John is on MY side, is MUCH better >> positioned to affect this disaster, yet he is completely powerless. If even >> he, as a Director of Research at a major university's medical center, can't >> do anything, what chance do I as an outsider have? >> >> I believe that genetic research for drug use is its own "bubble" that >> will soon pop. One of the 20 repeating threads at WORLDCOMP (coming on June >> 16-19 in Las Vegas) is the point where genetic research intersects with >> computer science, so I have had plenty of opportunity to talk about what I >> see is the misdirection of genetic research with them. I expected strong >> opposition, but found general agreement. Most understand that most >> illnesses are NOT of genetic origin and there won't be many genetic cures, >> but they work in this field because that is where the money now is, as >> those who have specialized in other areas of health-related research are >> for the most part unemployed. It seems to me to just be a matter of time >> until the drug companies figure out that there just isn't much value in >> this research, and abandon all but the most promising avenues of research. >> There still seems to be plenty that genetic research can do for cancer, but >> the other areas will simply die from lack of progress. >> >> When this bubble bursts there is going to be a bloodbath in >> health-related research. My crystal ball isn't clear enough to tell me what >> (if any) bubble will come next. Perhaps it will be tissue diagramming. >> 8-:D> >> >> Steve >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/1658954-f53d1a3f> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-c97d2393 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-2484a968 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
