Steve, You’re talking about how specific projects should be conducted, (no argument), I about how general discussions on this and other forums should be conducted – before most people get to serious projects.
Steve: These guys are never ever going to get together enough credibility (e.g. in the form of a BUSINESS plan) to build an AGI. Yes, I know that. So what I’m suggesting here is a simple way of trying to change the present vague ways they think – wh. if unchanged, will mean they will always stay “dreamers” as you say. Things can be done. It is basically a very poorly defined creative culture in the society at large that allows would-be creatives to stay confused dreamers. I, as a philosopher and pyschologist of creativity, am interested in changing that. It will change. As a society we are currently wasting 90% of our creative potential – 90% of people aren’t even trying to be seriously creative. And of the remaining 10% would-be creatives, the majority are arguably still wasting their potential, by trying in v. misguided ways – e.g. not even defining their creative problem. The issue of AGI and the issue of human creativity are actually intertwined – the more you improve one field, the more you will improve the other. Unfortunately, no one here realises that. Most AGI-ers tend to be somewhat antisocial and misanthropic/ From: Steve Richfield Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 1:20 AM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] re: The Two Prerequisites to start an AGI project Mike, I have worked on lots of research projects. The first step is to state a prospectively achievable goal, and then explore how it might be achieved. Until I posted how to fast parse (and understand) English, even that puny goal wasn't practical. Now that I have shown how to do it, it still isn't clear whether anyone is contemplating using this method. However, there ARE some potential products that appear to be within reach even of systems discussed here on the AGI forum: Take for example Arthur Murray's project, which looked to me like it might be GREAT for organizing a disorganized inventory system, there things are in boxes, the boxes are in crates, and the crates are stacked around and moved as necessary. However, whenever I try to talk to Arthur and others about practical applications, they are highly disinterested. I suspect that OpenCog might make a useful tool for assembly line automation, but of course NO one here is interested in automating assembly lines, even though they are broke because they have no such lines in their closets. Hence, all I see here are a bunch of disorganized dreamers who are incapable of even getting enough together to have something to "manage". The "review" you talk about is just an ordinary part of the management process. The piston ring is missing because there is no piston. The piston is missing because there is no engine. The engine is missing because there is no car. The car is missing because there are no suitable materials. Etc. Discussing details like "review" is ridiculous, because it is an ordinary component of something else that is also missing. I have proposed a scanning UV fluorescence microscope to punch through some of the research barriers, but NO one here wants the answers dropped in their lap, but rather they want to spend the rest of their lives fiddling in a hopeless hope of stumbling onto the answers, even though there are presently no (affordable) computers fast enough to support such efforts. This whole thing looks a LOT like ancient Egyptian religion - to bring the economic forces to bear to build something REALLY BIG in the hope that it will bring everlasting life, without anything but pipe dreams to support that belief. Sure, the Egyptians could manage the construction of several pyramids (though one did collapse), but there is no evidence that pyramids ever came close to assisting in achieving their goal of having an afterlife. These guys (notice that there are NO gals here) are never ever going to get together enough credibility (e.g. in the form of a BUSINESS plan) to build an AGI. I recommend using them for what they are obviously VERY good at - evaluating AI projects, knowing just about everything that has ever happened in AI, etc. I have already done a MUCH better job of trying to reform them, and have failed miserably. Your puny efforts don't stand a fart's chance in a high wind of making ANY difference at all. I suggest saving the wear and tear on your keyboard, not because you aren't 100% correct, but because the words don't exist to convey your message to this group. Steve =================== On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Mike Tintner <[email protected]> wrote: Steve, You seem to agree on the requirements of an O.D. & E.M.. Your “solution” : “bring in a project manager” - is hardly practical. How’s that going to help or be possible for almost anyone here? {Nice if you can get one, most can’t]. I am talking about, via a review system, establishing an inventive *culture* of properly targeted problems and solutions – which will become a part of each individual and influence their practice and projects. It isn’t that hard to do. And it will make a vast difference. You’ve just seen with Alan, who was at least brave enough to put his thoughts forward, – another example of confused, vague operational definitions. If you can’t define the problem, you can’t propose an EM or solve it – you can only waste life. Please think again re a review system.. From: Steve Richfield Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 10:17 PM To: AGI Subject: Re: [agi] re: The Two Prerequisites to start an AGI project 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 | Modify Your Subscription -- 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 | Modify Your Subscription AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription -- 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 | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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
