On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > The BIG question is: Who get the quadrillion dollars?
It cost $1 quadrillion in constant 2013 dollars to advance our global economy to its current state from where it was 20 years ago. Where did that money come from? My AGI design includes a funding model. When you have a lot of narrow experts and a network that routes messages to the right ones, you have AGI, as in automating what you would otherwise have to pay people to do. Individuals have a vested interest in selling these services, either doing work or knowing who can do it. In an economy where information has negative value, you have to invest in knowledge and computing power to get people's attention. This is nothing new. It is how the internet already works. Already, tens of trillions of dollars have been spent to build it and make it smarter, in spite of the fact that nobody has that much money. > Either a social reformation will occur before AGI appears, or most of the > world's population, probably including you and whoever else invents AGI, > will starve as a result. As things now stand, I see AGI as MUCH more of a > threat than a promise. I guess you haven't noticed that machines already do most of the work. Rather than people starving, agriculture has gone from almost all of the world's economy in 1800 to 6% today (and 1.5% in the U.S.). Now, food is so cheap that in developed countries, the poor are more likely to be overweight than the rich. > Further, if you read my prior postings where I explained to Ben the VERY > negative value of near-term AGI predictions on everyone working in the > field, you would see the negative value of your own posting. Hyping AGI is > DANGEROUS to us all, including you. I have been lurking on the OpenCog mailing list for a few years. There is no chance that it will ever be powerful enough to be considered dangerous. You don't build AGI by trying to solve all of the problem at once. If you want to get funded, your system has to do work. We hire people to do work because currently only humans can solve many hard problems in language, vision, robotics, art, and predicting human behavior. This is different than the problem that OpenCog is trying to solve: building artificial human minds with all of their weaknesses like emotions and cognitive limitations. They are doing no new research into these hard problems, and are a long way from solving them. MOSES (an evolutionary learner), DeSTIN (neural vision), ReLex (rule based parser), NatGen (text output), and AtomSpace (hypergraph based knowledge representation) are toys that lack the vast computing power and knowledge bases needed to solve these hard problems. Most of the work over the last several years has been trying to integrate these components and maintaining a huge code base in several languages that is a major effort to install and then doesn't do anything once it is running. But I do have to commend Ben for the effort. Nobody else on this list is even doing any work at all in AGI. -- -- Matt Mahoney, [email protected] ------------------------------------------- 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
