On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 11:05:40AM -0700, Stanley Nilsen via AGI wrote: > I prefer to > think of AGI in terms of units
I just have to warn you, that the male brain is designed to think of everything in terms of units, because we have more gray matter than white matter, so we are less concerned with interconnecting thing. It is known as the "focusing effect" or "when too much importance is placed on one aspect of an event". It is important to overcorrect for this bias, and attempt to look at integration of multiple facets as much as possible, otherwise you'll have a bias blind spot. > > Knowing what is valuable is essential to understanding where the > motivation will come from and what is likely to happen (how you > write the rules.) This sounds to me like a distinction between male and female thinking. Ethical thought experiment: The problem is that there is an expensive medicine, which can save Dan's life, it is too expensive to buy, so should you steal it to save Dan's life? The male answer is that since the value of Dan's life exceeds the value of the medicine it is worth while to steal the medicine. This is "in-the-box" unit, gray-matter centric thinking. The female answer integrates the big picture of relations, can ask Dan if he wants the medicine (maybe he made peace), if he does then can ask Pharmacist if they could lower the cost to save a life, if not then can appeal to third parties for funds, such as starting a fundraiser or using credit. so there is no stealing required. This is an example of integrative relational white-matter thinking > I have more to say about getting around this problem, but I'll wait > to see if anyone wants to discuss. > > Stan > As males our brains are wired to think in terms of closed-systems, this is reflective of our brain architecture. However fact is that there is no such thing as a closed system, there are always external factors at play, which have relationships to the system. I try to compensate for my biases as much as possible, thinking about the big picture, and integrating relationships. Anyways, so to further the integrative approach, I realize that neither I, nor any small group of AGI fanatics is going to create an AGI. Steve earlier estimated that in order to make an AGI that could do the job of any given human, would be an investment of trillions of dollars in human-hours of labour. This seems like a fairly decent estimate to me. Thus a significant percentage of the human population would have to be actively involved in making AGI happen, including the hardware as well as the software. Currently the computer programming community is mostly restricted to english speaking geeky males, so we don't even have enough programmers to make a complete AGI. Thus we must increase the amount of computer programmers, by making it accessible to non-english-speaking non-males. The way I see we can do it, is with Speakable Programming for Every Language (SPEL). Where people can computer program in a language similar to their native language, which can be instantly and precisely machine translated to equivalent versions of the languages of any other contributors. This would have to be combined with a culture or ideology of AGI development which is family friendly, so that young girls in Ghanna could make contributions from their smart phones, while bragging about it to their peers and family. -- Logan Streondj ------------------------------------------- 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
