It is quite easy to come up with software project ideas that you are really sure will work and will be very good things to have working that take longer than the proposed AGI time table. I imagine it could be quite possible to have the correct idea of how AGI could be created but take tens to hundreds of programming years (larger well enough integrated team would be nice) to actually have a demonstrated proof of correctness.
I don't think it is likely to be all that simple. I rather doubt that it is the kind of thing that one or two people can hold the core of in their heads like many software systems. Merely my opinion of course. On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Jim Bromer <[email protected]> wrote: > Nearly 11 months ago I made the claim that I thought that I had AGI > all figured out. I did not make my claim to brag about my > accomplishments but to demonstrate the inanity of such claims. I do > feel that I have it figured out, but that only means that I am at the > next stage of a long process. I said that if someone had it all > figured out that he should be able to get a demo working within a > year. However, I then modified that statement because we do have to > give researchers, even amateur researchers, especially amateur > researchers, some leeway. So then, if I had it all figured out, I > really should be able to have some kind of demo in 2 years. I also > pointed out that if 5 months went by and I was still working on the > basics and had not even started working on the AI part then that would > be a pretty sure sign that I did not have it all figured out. > Doubling that time to 10 months makes sense since we should give > researchers some leeway. And I also added that since things, like > illnesses or situations can interfere with your time that issues like > that should also be taken into account. And indeed, I had both > illnesses and family situations that really interfered with my work. > So anyway, taking that all into account, I do feel comfortable > declaring that if I haven’t started working on the AI part by the end > of this month then that is a pretty good sign that I did not (and > presumably still do not) have AGI all figured out. Well, it does not > look too likely that I will start doing any AI stuff by the end of > next week, so I really have to give up on the attitude that I have it > all figured out. I do have some good ideas, I am working hard on my > program, and I will be able to start testing my AI ideas out early > next year. So I can say that I am testing my ideas out (I am working > on the facility to test them out) and that I have some sophisticated > ideas to work with. But the attitude that I have it all figured out > is not a reality and thankfully I do not waste much time with that > kind of ego-driven delusion. > > I do have some feelings that other people have it wrong. I don’t see > any reason to deny that. I have heard a lot of theories that were put > forward without reasons or with insubstantial reasons (like some > shallow ad hominem denouncement that is repeated ad nauseam) or with > some cherry-picked reasoning that is always advanced without examining > alternative views. But that does not mean that I can realistically > dismiss other people’s AGI theories. Since I don’t have it all figured > out I have to keep an open mind when someone can talk about something > that makes some kind of sense in programming terms. > -- > Jim Bromer > > > ------------------------------------------- > AGI > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/2997756-fc0b9b09 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > ------------------------------------------- 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
