Lol, I'm not a Neo-Reactionary. I don't believe in monarchs and all that nonsense. However, I do believe that strong central control can get things done :)
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 12:25 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: > > Uh oh... the Invasion of the AGI List by the Neo-Reactionaries has begun > !!! > > The modern track record of monarchs per se is not so great, but the > success of Asian economies in recent decades does seem to speak to the > strengths of non-stupid strong central state control in fostering > technological progress... > > -- Ben G > > > On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Azn A <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Coolness, but what exactly do I have to gain by sharing my ideas? :) What >> do you have to offer me? After talking to a number of people, I believe >> that the only hope for the future is that the system can get a Czar (as in >> me) - an Unincentivized Incentivizer, someone who controls the entire >> system while standing outside of it. This isn't just about a better Web. >> It's about restructuring our civilization -- a shift to a new social order >> for the betterment of humanity. I'm tried of waiting around for things to >> get done. Play time is over. >> >> *From slatestarcodex*: There is an extraordinarily useful pattern of >> refactored agency in which you view humans as basically actors playing >> roles determined by their incentives. Anyone who strays even slightly from >> their role is outcompeted and replaced by an understudy who will do better. >> That means the final state of a system is determined entirely by its >> initial state and the dance of incentives inside of it. >> >> If a system has perverse incentives, it's not going to magically fix >> itself; no one inside the system has an incentive to do that. The end user >> of the system - the student or consumer - is already part of the incentive >> flow, so they're not going to be helpful. The only hope is that the system >> can get a Czar - an Unincentivized Incentivizer, someone who controls the >> entire system while standing outside of it. >> >> For example, take the problems with the scientific community, which my >> friends in Berkeley often discuss. There's lots of publication bias, >> statistics are done in a confusing and misleading way out of sheer inertia, >> and replications often happen very late or not at all. And sometimes >> someone will say something like "I can't believe people are too dumb to fix >> Science. All we would have to do is require early registration of studies >> to avoid publication bias, turn this new and powerful statistical technique >> into the new standard, and accord higher status to scientists who do >> replication experiments. It would be really simple and it would vastly >> increase scientific progress. I must just be smarter than all existing >> scientists, since I'm able to think of this and they aren't." >> >> And I answer "Well, yeah, that would work for the Science Czar. He could >> just make a Science Decree that everyone has to use the right statistics, >> and make another Science Decree that everyone must accord replications >> higher status. And since we all follow the Science Czar's Science Decrees, >> it would all work perfectly!" >> >> Why exactly am I being so sarcastic? Because things that work from a >> czar's-eye view don't work from within the system. No individual scientist >> has an incentive to unilaterally switch to the new statistical technique >> for her own research, since it would make her research less likely to >> produce earth-shattering results and since it would just confuse all the >> other scientists. They just have an incentive to want everybody else to do >> it, at which point they would follow along. >> >> Likewise, no journal has the incentive to unilaterally demand early >> registration, since that just means everyone who forgot to early register >> their studies would switch to their competitors' journals. >> >> And since the system is only made of individual scientists and individual >> journals, no one is ever going to switch and science will stay exactly as >> it is. >> >> I use this "czar" terminology a lot. Like when people talk about >> reforming the education system, I point out that right now students' >> incentive is to go to the most prestigious college they can get into so >> employers will hire them, employers' incentive is to get students from the >> most prestigious college they can so that they can defend their decision to >> their boss if it goes wrong, and colleges' incentive is to do whatever it >> takes to get more prestige, as measured in US News and World Report >> rankings. Does this lead to huge waste and poor education? Yes. Could an >> Education Czar notice this and make some Education Decrees that lead to a >> vastly more efficient system? Easily! But since there's no Education Czar >> everybody is just going to follow their own incentives, which have nothing >> to do with education or efficiency. >> >> A standard liberal democratic government is not an Unincentivized >> Incentivizer. Government officials are beholden to the electorate and to >> their campaign donors, and they need to worry about being outcompeted by >> the other party. They, too, are slaves to their incentives. The obvious >> solution to corporate welfare is "end corporate welfare". A three year old >> could think of it. But anyone who tried would get outcompeted by powerful >> corporate interests backing the campaigns of their opponents, or >> outcompeted by other states that still have corporate welfare and use it to >> send businesses and jobs their way. It's obvious from outside the system, >> and completely impossible from the inside. It would appear we need some >> kind of a Government Czar. >> >> Everyone realizes our current model of government is screwed up and >> corrupt. We keep electing fresh new Washington Outsiders who promise with >> bright eyes to unupscrew and decorruptify it. And then they keep being >> exactly as screwed up and corrupt as the last group, because if you hire a >> new actor to play the same role, the lines are still going to come out >> exactly the same. Want reform? The lines to "Act V: An Attempt To Reform >> The System" are already written and have been delivered dozens of times >> already. How is changing the actors and actresses going to help? >> >> A Czar could actually get stuff done. Imperial Decree 1: End all >> corporate welfare. Imperial Decree 2: Close all tax loopholes. Imperial >> Decree 3: Health care system that doesn't suck. You get the idea. >> >> Would the Czar be corrupt and greedy and tyrannical? Yes, probably. Let's >> say he decided to use our tax money to build himself a mansion ten times >> bigger than the Palace of Versailles. The Internet suggests that building >> Versailles today would cost somewhere between $200M and $1B, so let's >> dectuple the high range of that estimate and say the Czar built himself a >> $10 billion dollar palace. And he wants it plated in solid gold, so that's >> another $10 billion. Fine. Corporate welfare is $200B per year. If the Czar >> were to tell us "I am going to take your tax money and spend it on a giant >> palace ten times the size of Versailles covered in solid gold", the proper >> response would be "Great, but what are we going to do with the other $180 >> billion dollars you're saving us?" >> >> In the democratic system, the incentive is always for the country to >> become more progressive, because progressivism is the appeal to the lowest >> common denominator. There may be reversals, false starts, and Reagan >> Revolutions, but over the course of centuries democracy means inevitable >> creeping progress. As Mencius Moldbug says, "Cthulhu swims slowly, but he >> always swims left." A Czar, free from these incentives, would be able to >> take the best of progressivism and leave the rest behind. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Duncan Murray < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks for the detailed email, and yes I'd be happy to help work on >>> mapping information. >>> >>> Do you have a link to your Upper Ontology (or work in general - looks >>> interesting). I still want to have a look at all the current data - it is >>> surprising that there are so many around. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Duncan >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Azn A <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> That's cute Duncan. However, you've missed our Upper Level Ontology >>>> which is almost spot on to the true requirements to implement a unified >>>> database. We're only missing the AI side but that's a side argument for the >>>> rationality to implement a different/more unified base/core referential >>>> integrity system that is more towards the unified field theory but that's >>>> not a requirement until you want a conceptual processing environment for a >>>> brain like processor/agent.. >>>> >>>> Anyway, if you're interested in mapping human information to a format >>>> that an AI can read (or in the short term - normal automation software) I >>>> might be interested.. We're working on a new Web (the Concept Web) >>>> separable from the previous Web layer that is computable by machines. OWL / >>>> RDF are not sufficient. In Web 1.0 and 2.0 we were linking documents, e.g. >>>> web documents, files. What is different with OWL / RDF is that we also link >>>> structured data, from relational databases, from RDF databases. But we are >>>> still in the data level. OWL is supposed to bridge the gap between >>>> programming and semantic relations, in practise this has never been >>>> achieved! Web 3.0 has to be differentiated from the current web, it has to >>>> create a distinct layer on top of the existing linked data layer with its >>>> own referencing scheme (from WWW to GGG) that can be resolved with the >>>> current URI scheme. This will have its own way to define and handle terms, >>>> concepts, relations, axioms, rules, the structural components of an >>>> ontology. >>>> >>>> I envision a new Web consisting of maybe 35 Web platforms (as the new >>>> Web will be one giant database) covering local knowledge to science. Once >>>> phase 1 is completed (destruction of the old fragmented Web), I plan to >>>> roll out a science Web platform that directs AGI research. The system >>>> (something like IBM waston but much more powerful) will request scientists, >>>> etc to conduct detailed research to discover unknown facts about analyzed >>>> Systems. The system would then conduct detailed research to discover new >>>> facts about Systems and put these facts into the database by itself, even >>>> without interaction with Scientists. That's the kind of thing that would >>>> get AGI moving forward if done right. That would also lead to a revolution >>>> in science ( >>>> http://science.kqed.org/quest/2011/09/26/the-open-science-movement/) >>>> where Scientists, professional and amateur would have secure profiles and >>>> could publish ideas quickly and be on record as the first to come up with >>>> something long before they could get a paper out for peer review. The >>>> pressure to publish here would come not from the science greats but from >>>> the fringe. If some group of amateurs starts using their collective brains >>>> to start mapping out ideas in your area of expertise, you better get all of >>>> your work out in the daylight or they will steal your thunder. Any ideas >>>> you post to someone else' page are there on record, so your part is known >>>> to all. In the past you could have one genius pushing our understanding >>>> because a lot wasn't known. Today, progress is a lot more incremental and >>>> departmental ... One guy spends 5 years and through trial and error he >>>> makes a small discovery. It takes time before other researches integrate >>>> his discovery into their thought and put it to use because everything is >>>> too fragmented and fucked up. The possibilities are endless here. >>>> >>>> >>>> ~Azn A >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:41 AM, Duncan Murray < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for that - I am doing a review on all the upper ontologies I >>>>> can find relating to or which might benefit AI development and wanted >>>>> include the OpenCog definitions. ( >>>>> http://www.acutesoftware.com.au/aikif/ontology.html) >>>>> >>>>> I have written a Python script to export the MindOntology pages into a >>>>> CSV file. >>>>> The code is - >>>>> https://github.com/acutesoftware/AIKIF/blob/master/AI/ontology/createMindOntology.py >>>>> >>>>> and the CSV file is - >>>>> https://github.com/acutesoftware/AIKIF/blob/master/AI/ontology/mindOntology.csv >>>>> >>>>> Feel free to use the code, or the CSV file in OpenCog, as I would love >>>>> to be able to contribute to this project. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> Duncan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe I created that, way back when, directly as a set of wiki >>>>>> pages... >>>>>> >>>>>> ben g >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Duncan Murray < >>>>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all! >>>>>>> I have been reading this group for a while now and am interested >>>>>>> in mapping human information to a format that an AI can read (or in the >>>>>>> short term - normal automation software). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was wondering if the MindOntology ( >>>>>>> http://wiki.opencog.org/w/MindOntology) is available as a single >>>>>>> dataset (OWL / RDF / text), or is the source currently the set of wiki >>>>>>> pages? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Duncan Murray >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> *AGI* | Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/212726-deec6279> | >>>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Ben Goertzel, PhD >>>>>> http://goertzel.org >>>>>> >>>>>> "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. >>>>>> James T. Kirk >>>>>> >>>>>> "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery / None but ourselves can >>>>>> free our minds" -- Robert Nesta Marley >>>>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/25449614-a78bbfa7> | >>>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10514698-9a8cda1e> | >>>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>> >>>> >>>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/25449614-a78bbfa7> | >>>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>>> >>> >>> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10514698-9a8cda1e> | >>> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>> <http://www.listbox.com> >>> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/19237892-5029d625> | >> Modify <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > http://goertzel.org > > "In an insane world, the sane man must appear to be insane". -- Capt. > James T. Kirk > > "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery / None but ourselves can free our > minds" -- Robert Nesta Marley > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/10514698-9a8cda1e> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <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
