Matt, On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Matt Mahoney <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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? > All money is loaned into existence. These loans can only be paid back with interest, which requires additional money, etc. Eventually, after the money is recycled a few times, the loaner/creator of money owns everything. THAT is the course we are now on. > > 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. > With debt financing, they simply borrow it through a chain that leads to the FED, who creates it out of thin air. Of course this must be paid back later. > > > 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. > ... and they receive most of the pay. I guess you haven't noticed how unemployment continues to grow and grow. This is the longest predicted catastrophe in history ~150 years in the making. Now it is here. 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.). And STILL whole continents are on the edge of starvation. Doesn't THAT tell you something, like our system is severely BROKEN? > Now, > food is so cheap that in developed countries, the poor are more likely > to be overweight than the rich. > You can no longer be healthy on the food that is grown anywhere. The soils of the world have become depleted. You MUST supplement with SOMETHING to have enough B-12, and there are other nutrients like magnesium that are also becoming too scarce for ANY diet to provide enough of them. People become fat because they eat and eat trying to get enough essential nutrients to survive, and in the process get enough carbohydrates to pack on useless weight - useless because it won't serve them during famine because that fat is also missing essential nutrients. > > > 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. I agree. My concern was over Ben's WORDS, and NOT any associated technological developments. The *Terminator* movie series has built a case for KILLING AGI developers that shouldn't be ignored in a world full of shitforbrains crazies. If you haven't seen these movies, then I recommend that you watch them. 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. > We are in agreement on all of these points. Again, my concern was over his lunatic-inspiring WORDS, not his actions. > > But I do have to commend Ben for the effort. Nobody else on this list > is even doing any work at all in AGI. > I joined this list to find technological jewels to embed in real-world systems. Perhaps I have missed something, but I haven't found the jewel yet. However, I HAVE found some really bright people on this forum with whom I can discuss related technologies. Despite not having found the jewel, this has definitely made the AGI forum worth the aggravation. Steve ------------------------------------------- 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
