On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]>wrote:
> Mike, > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 6:36 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > >> ** >> Steve, >> >> Like all such discussions you initiate, this is pointless, isn't it? >> > > My mini-goal at this moment is just to spread the word. Wild incredible > unexpected success might be being invited to make presentations at > appropriate conferences. Like early microcomputers, nothing is going to > happen until the basic concepts become generally known. As much as science > WILL need a diagrammer to continue, people just don't now see their > roadblocks clearly enough to fund such an effort. > > So, no, I don't see the discussion as pointless, though I agree that these > discussions are NOT going to result in any near term funding of any sort,. > >> Is there anyone in this group or affiliates who is sufficiently >> creatively and entrepreneurially developed to lead or make a successful AGI >> (or big narrow AI) project? You seen any young (or middle-aged) Bill >> Gates' or Wozniaks around? Perhaps Voss is a reasonable entrepreneur (I >> can't judge) but not sufficiently creative. Anyone else? >> > > No comment. > >> Nobody in these discussions applies any creative psychology (i.e >> psychology of how creatively and intellectually developed people are) - and >> you have to, if you want to achieve things and have successful >> partnerships.. >> > > I am not sure what metalevel your thinking is at here, e.g. do you think I > should: > > 1. change my present strategy of talking and waiting? > 2. give up here and move on to other venues? > 3. try to put a startup together despite the present situation? > 4. stop wasting my time and work on something more productive? > 5. come up with better alternatives? > 4. > > On side note, I suspect that LOTS of people are distancing themselves > from AGI while carefully watching what is going on, because they see the > same sorts of roadblocks that I see, > ? whatchya talking about? sure it's uphill, but that's cause it's exponential. lol :-D cum labore ad sidera with effort to the stars! :-) > and don't want their careers to be destroyed by them. > slaves, meh. they can be as sheeple as they like. > As a result, efforts to exclude "insurance bets" like mine will continue > to greatly restrict the AGI ranks. Not promoting such efforts seems grossly > suicidal to AGI on three levels: > > 1. The actual future capability to eliminate roadblocks. > 2. The perceived future capability to eliminate roadblocks, needed to > solicit significant funding. > 3. Greatly lengthens the time between perceiving the immediate need, and > satisfying that need. AGI may survive this gap, but it will probably > bankrupt everyone involved in AGI. > If you're looking at a wall, when there is a clear path, why would anyone fund you? > > As result, I hereby proclaim that AGI has NO effective leadership, > Well Ben is the leader. At least in the public eye. > because effective leadership would quickly attend to such "details". Oh, * > NOW* I see your point. about these discussions being pointless. 8-:D> > that's a cute emoticon :-). > > Steve > > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/5037279-6ef01b0b> | > 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
