I agree completely. For example, some months ago I set out my reasons for thinking it won't be productive to try to copy the architecture of the human brain short of full uploading. I haven't repeated my view on that since then, because I don't have any new arguments or evidence bearing on the matter, and repeating the same arguments would just annoy people. I think that's a good criterion: is this a new argument, or just a repeat of an old one? If the latter, it probably doesn't need to be repeated to the same audience.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > In general, I think it would be good if subgroups of people sharing > certain AI intuitions could carry out a discussion on this list, with > others listening in and contributing occasionally, but with others NOT > repetitively chiming into the discussion with comments of the basic meaning > "By the way, I told you guys 100 times before that your paradigm sucks, so > why do you keep on pursuing it?!" > > For example, I would be happy to listen in on others' discussions on > analog computing approaches to AGI, making technical comments or asking > technical questions occasionally; and I would not feel the need to > interrupt these discussions repeatedly with comments of the form "Why don't > you guys adopt my preferred AGI paradigm instead!!" > > This is almost making me feel motivated to create a set of posting > guidelines for the list ;p .. but, not quite... > > -- Ben G > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM, Russell Wallace < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Steve Richfield < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> OK, perhaps we should just stay here and distinguish "weak AGI" where >>> people attempt to somehow leverage data point computation into an >>> intelligent process as now seems to be the norm on this forum, and "strong >>> AGI" where we attempt to move up to whatever metalevel is at least as high >>> as our brains operate on, and which can also conceivably be performed by >>> plausibly manufacturable hardware, albeit not anything like present CPUs. >>> >>> Any problem with those terms? >>> >> >> Yes, 'strong AI' already has an established meaning, denoting the aim of >> producing a fully human level mind (by whatever method), as opposed to >> 'weak AI' which merely aims to make computers smarter and more useful than >> they currently are. >> >> Besides, you don't exactly need a PhD in psychology to figure out that >> many people will object to the word 'weak' being applied to their line of >> research! Personally I don't care about that so much as about the fact that >> your proposed usage is highly uninformative. >> >> Until you get enough like-minded people to start a separate mailing list, >> I would recommend coming up with a more descriptive term for your proposed >> line of research. >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-11ac2389> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche > > *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 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
