Mike, I think you may be over-analyzing. IMHO "all" AGI needs is a good project manager, who will INSIST on not only proof of concept, but enough details to be able to produce believable project guesstimates, etc.
Of course there are no good project managers in AGI, and there can never be unless/until AGI reforms enough to permit one to operate. Steve ======================= On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]>wrote: > [cont] > > OTOH if Gutenberg had said: “look, I think this machine I’m designing will > really be better for printing - look at the wheel assemblies, I’m > proposing... look at the additional power they will produce.. look at the > speed of these levers.. look at the quality of the ink ingredients... look > at the fonts... read my book on font patterns... read my book on wheel > mechanisms ..look at my “logic gates”... read my book on logic.. look at > the long list of my academic papers and citations”.... > > you’d have to say: “fuck off, Gutenberg, where’s your proof of concept?” > > Or to be more precise still, a would-be inventor must have: > > 2) a proof of concept, with an EFFECTIVE MECHANISM ... a mechanism that > will produce the desired effect - enable your machine to perform its > function as specified in your operational definition. A > wine-press-type-press constitutes an “effective mechanism” for pressing > seals down faster. “Faster wheel assembles” do not. They do not connect in > any necessary way to the seals. > > All this applies equally to theorising about AGI, as well as AGI projects. > No one who merely theorises about AGI has either an operational definition > or a proof of concept/effective mechanism. > > Jim has never offered an operational definition of AGI of any kind, hasn’t > in fact a clue what an AGI problem is. > > And he proposes a vague mechanism – essentially “complexity reduction” – > without the slightest proof of concept /explanation of how this “mechanism” > will be effective in solving any AGI problem – or how complexity is > actually involved in any AGI problem. > > Jim is typical. Ben couldn’t begin to explain how probabilistic logic will > solve any AGI problem. > > And the amazing thing is no one has any shame about this. A recognition of > some kind of operational definition/proof-of-concept protocols would > produce the necessary shame > > *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> > -- 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. ------------------------------------------- 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
