Todor, I'm not arguing that the current academic system is particularly fair, or awesome, etc.
However, I note that, of all the social systems and institutions created by humans so far, it has been the one most consistently able to support long-term, creative research.... If you want to argue that our whole society is screwily structured, I won't bother to counter-argue ;p .... However, if you compare academia to other existing or historical social structures, it actually does a pretty good job of fostering research -- in spite of its egregious flaws!! Regarding your suggestion that academics have no good reason not to have created AGI so far -- heh.... I remember the routine of being an academic (which I was from 1989-1996). When I was a US academic, I probably spent 20 hrs/week on teaching, including supervising students and grading etc. Maybe 5 hrs/week on departmental paperwork and committee meetings.... Then maybe 5 hrs/week on writing papers.... So we have 30 hrs/week eaten up there... and you can do research in the rest of your time. If you don't write grant proposals, then you have an OK income and the rest of your time (beyond ~30 hrs or whatever) to do research. But, if you think about it, is your situation THAT different from someone who works 40 hours/week in some other job, and does research in the rest of their time? On the other hand, these days it's hard to get away as an academic without spending ~5-10hrs/week slaving away writing proposals (could be more for some folks).... And it's very hard to get proposals for AGI funded. So if you write only AGI proposals, you'll likely get no funding, and not get tenure; or if you're tenured, you'll get assigned loads of extra teaching. But if you write non-AGI proposals, and they get funded, you'll end up spending your time running a non-AGi research lab with no time left for AGI.... I'm not saying academia is a terrible gig compared to other alternatives. Just pointing out that, except in rare cases, it's not a matter of folks just getting paid a salary to pursue their own research ideas on whatever topics they feel like.... [I had a job like that in Australia from 1995-96 .. a research fellowship, with no job duties except to think about whatever I felt like. That was pretty sweet, but it was a rare sort of opportunity, and there were many applicants for such jobs and few got accepted...] If an academic is going to work on AGI in the current environment, they have be fairly risk-taking and entrepreneurial in nature, and have to be willing to risk being considered crank-ish by their colleagues.... This is changing fast, and is much less strongly the case than it was 10 or even 5 years ago, but it's still somewhat true... Regarding predecessors to conceptual AI ideas -- I think you will find that nearly any conceptual AI idea was presented in some form by the systems theorists and cyberneticians of the 1960s (or sometimes earlier).... Just like musical melodies, conceptual AI ideas seem to have rich prehistories, appearing in various forms in multiple places before finally arising in the right form and timing to "catch on" ... -- Ben G On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Todor Arnaudov <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for your answer, Ben, > > Let me object, though... :P > > My first objection is my previous angry email, with evidences about > "developmental costs" of the academia and how they could be: here: > http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/2012/12/search/dHdlbmtpZA/sort/time_rev/page/1/entry/3:13/20121214214535:7EE418E4-4661-11E2-9F8B-BD8112A364BD/ > > IMHO academics have no excuse for not producing thinking machines already. > That's good for us, in my "cranky" estimate the early AGI prototypes > ("Sputnik"-s) are coming next year or in the next several years, anyway. > > > >First, I find that most good researchers have way, way more ideas than > they bother to write up for publications. Â Writing papers for publication > >is a pain in many ways, and one tends to choose one's more mainstream and > less controversial ideas to write up for publication, to avoid wasting > >time arguing with referees.... Also there is pressure to write up > concrete results (even boring ones) in preference to interesting but > >unsubstantiated ideas, as the latter are less likely to pass throught > refereeing process... > >The result is that a researcher's publication record is a weirdly > distorted sample of their actual research and thinking.... Â Certainly, > what some > >guy publishes in 2009 may have been thought of in 1985 ... or > whenever.... Â He may have submitted it for publication in 2009 because he > >thought some particular conference, or journal special issue etc., would > be likely to accept it -- or because he thought the time was right, in the > >sense that there were finally enough other relevant papers to put in the > references.... Â > > "They bother to write", "Writing a paper is a pain" - well, they are paid > for this, to write one "hard" paper in 3 months, for example, to go to > conferences etc. I and other independent researchers "bother to write" > papers and speculations and theories for free, and we have to think also > about other issues, and we are considered "cranks", why should I feel sorry > for the "hard life" of ones who are paid to do in 3 months things which > others do in a fraction of the time for free. > > The system is driven by the "evidences", you get credentials, grants, a > laboratory and students to work for you, because of your "contributions", > which are proven by providing evidences that you give something new and > better than "the state of the art". > > In patent cases - you may be 2 hours late to patent an invention you've > done say 1 year before somebody else, the system will throw you out, > because you are late. (The case with Graham Bell's telephone and many > others - anyone remembers the name of the other guy who also has invented > the telephone?) > > IMO that's wrong and unfair, if two inventors reach to similar results > independently, they both deserve a share of glory and the rights. > > "The winner takes it all" principle is some kind of an archaic feudal > greedy relic, and if you see patents from 200 years ago and now, the format > seems the same, the same boring declarations of "novelty" of things which > are often obvious for a monkey. (Not always, but sometimes). Both two > hundred years and today, it's full of nonsense patents, and someone earning > millions just for registering in the patent office first, which usually > serves big fat rich corporations that have an army of patent-guys to dig > into the patents and "lock" stuff. > > Well, what's wrong with that? "It promotes competition, blah-blah".. > > Someone gets millions, and another ones who have done the invention right > before him or in the same time or in near time-region, without knowing the > "original" author, just gets nothing. > > If something is patented, it's already "published", so it's assumed that > "everybody knows about it" - every other inventor's job is to go read > what's the most boring new "contributions". > > The system is similar in the Academia, but the "registration" office is a > bigger, but it's the same in regard that one claims that she has made > "contributions", because the literature proves that she was first - cites > and the dates of the other publications and her are the evidences for her > contribution. > > If an academic author can't provide enough of evidences to the reviewers, > that he's made a novel contribution, the paper or the thesis won't get > accepted. > > On the other hand, I am "a crank in AGI" for that system, and I've been > insulted in such a way, because it's obvious - "I haven't made > contributions" in that field, I haven't had publications in formal journals > or AGI conferences, my writings are blamed to be just "informal essays". (I > don't think so.) > > However I provide evidences, that my works that are published before the > AGI conferences and AGI journals have existed (which made publishing in > them impossible), were ahead of what years later is stated as scientific > contributions and was accepted in respectful conferences. > > Therefore if the system is fair in following its rules, I should be at > least acknowledged by the ones who find those new evidences and who may > care. Ones who may be partners in my future ventures certainly would care > about that. > > Unfortunately, that seems to be a "pedantic registration system" as many > systems in society - it's about the act/ritual of registering something in > the "official" register, like the legal ones - where new companies or clubs > are registered, in order to be "legal". If you're not in that "legal" > register, it's like if you didn't exist for that system. > > >Also, remember, if you're an academic -- even if you come up with an idea > by pure common-sense thinking, independently of the research > >literature, when you write it up for publication you have to basically > PRETEND you conceived the idea via varying on prior papers from the > >research literature.... > > Sure they sometimes do and they have had early seeds of their ideas in the > past, and you have to fill the list in the literature, in order to be taken > seriously as "scientific" - however that doesn't guarantee that they really > haven't had started the flow of thoughts with some or many of the papers > they cite, especially the ones which are temporarily recent, from recent > conferences etc. > > And why that should be an excuse, like this one: > > >Certainly, what some > >guy publishes in 2009 may have been thought of in 1985 ... or > whenever.... Â He may have submitted it for publication in 2009 because he > >thought some particular conference, or journal special issue etc., would > be likely to accept it -- or because he thought the time was right, in >the > > So even if so (that I doubt), the conformists who keep their heads down > and hide even if they don't agree, receive respect and money, while the > brave ones who are not conformists, who were years ahead and lonely risked > to get "exposed" as "mad scientists", risked their career, risked his > reputation for life, who worked for their own risk without spending any > money of the taxpayers etc. etc., even after they are proven right by the > mainstream system - even then, they are supposed to get nothing, not even > respect, and they are supposed to stay quite and accept the status-quo? > > Sorry, but that's not me! > > The least thing I can do is to state firmly and clearly the evidences > about me being BEFORE that system or a particular paper, in a particular > case - the ones who care may acknowledge it and respect me more. > > If the other researchers have works which are earlier to something else - > let them publish it and stand for their position. > > My job is to stand for mine. > > >This doesn't diminish the observation that many of your ideas have been > independently arrived at by others. Â But I think it's a mistake to > >compare the time of your blogging or informal essay-writing, with the > time of someone else's formal publication... > > Thanks for the first part, but let me not agree with the second part. > > First of all - I don't think my "classical" works are less formal than for > example that particular paper (that one is not with a graph or a table of > numbers, making it "real"), unless if by "formal" you mean to provide a > long list of citations/literature, which is the way to persuade reviewers > who might be clueless before reviewing, but in fact nobody (human) would > read or check in full. As of the later blog-posts and essays, I try to > provide enough of evidences and maximally clear explanations even here in > the email list... > > The major works I am talking about are > interdisciplinary/philosophical/metaphysical treatises, in this blog post I > don't go into detailed comparison phrase and paragraph by paragraph - I > won't get a dime for it now. > ... > > As of publications - where should I have published them as a high-school > student or a first year student? Who would care? > > There were not qualified people in the system to see the value of those > works, the CS professors around weren't cross-disciplinary, and I was a > freshman - why a 50 year old Ph.D. with 123 publications, 3546 grants etc. > will pay attention to a kid, especially if the kid is pretending that he's > contributing something unique. > > As of going to a publishing house, I haven't given a try, expecting the > same response - "crazy graphomaniac kid, go home" or "pay so and so to get > it published". Maybe I've been wrong. > > Also, my works were not less formal than "On Intelligence", and suggest > similar model to HTM, besides covering wider domain of topics. > > Well, the book is an international best-seller, "revolutionary", and > Hawkins is praised for the book, while I am supposed to be a "crank", an > "impostor" - how can I prove I'm not and that my ideas were published prior > to his book etc. He's rich, that's his advantage. > > I am not in the system partially namely because I found that I was ahead > of it and ahead of my supervisors as early as a freshman in the University. > > If you're not acknowledged by the "authorities", in order to "beat the > system" you have to produce practical unquestionable results. > > However, in order to do it you must be 100 times more productive than the > competition funded sometimes by taxpayers' money and should be capable to > do it for free or for almost $0, because you get no funding and no support. > > You are not funded, because the system believes that "you haven't made new > contributions", and it thinks so, because you made them prior to the > system's existence, it wasn't there to observe your contributions. Then the > system forced you to obey with a more simpler "private" rank and serve and > distract, instead of moving your work further. > > And then if you try to republish later, as a "sergeant" - for this sick > system you are late, others were "before" you in the formal papers, because > they had an access; and worse - your own is already published material, > "not a novel contribution". > > In case you fail to beat the system/produce practical results by being 100 > times more productive and providing practical results, that would "prove" > that the system "was right", that you were a crank... > > > -- > ....* Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov ....* > * > .... Twenkid Research:* http://research.twenkid.com > > .... *Self-Improving General Intelligence Conference*: > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/07/news-sigi-2012-1-first-sigi-agi.html > > *.... Todor Arnaudov's Researches Blog**: * > http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | > 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 RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
