Well said. I have a gun, which way do I need to point it. =) On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 5:44 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote:
> Something weird going on with the listbox mail. I posted to the original > thread (without the (IGI) and I don't get broadcast. > I am hoping if I post to this one, that I get broadcast. > I actually sent this yesterday morning. No idea what is going on. > ======================================= > > Dorian et. al. > > Good to be getting into this. I have a sense of responsibility to those > that may seek to be involved. We have to get this right .. or as least as > close as we can. > > This framework: > > 1) Computer-based AGI (C-AGI) - digital computers are excellent > tools, however compared to the real brain they provide only a “reduced > model of computation” . > > 2) Hybrid-based AGI (H-AGI) to integrate wet lab research, > current AGI efforts, build a "full model of computation" that can be > reshaped and provide more tips how to build a more synthetic AGI . > This intermediary step can bring funding from all brain initiatives and > have huge impact on health/medicine and therapy. > > 3) Non-computer-based AGI (NC-AGI) , the final step > > This is excellent. I was always headed to 2). I just wish I had > expressed it this way earlier! Thanks Dorian. > > The brain is a natural version of (3). Clearly we are looking at a new > approach that, via something like an IGI, explores the possibility that > H-AGI is a step towards (3) and why. Such an approach merely recognizes > that we do not know which of the three (or combos of them) lead to what AGI > potential. This initiative represents an inclusive expansion in approaches > to AGI. > > *Board* > > I lean towards a business model that includes a managed receptiveness to > the views of the academic infrastructure. > > NOTE: I actually have a long history in business. Process > control/machine automation. I have started and run companies and filled > them full of folk. But I discovered its not my natural habitat. But I can > do it at gunpoint. I even got lawyers to put together a constitution for a > research institute once. I realised it would never get off the ground > because of me not being a scientist. All I had was an idea. The same idea > that I bring here today. So I became a scientist. Now I think I can do > this. But I would rather someone else did the nuts and bolts. I definitely > shouldn't be administering it. But I know how to set up and be enthusiastic > about stuff that someone else can run. I have the capacity to ensure the > institute deals with IP issues (or to decide not to). But if I was running > such a thing I would not hire me to inhabit the role because it's not > really 'me'. What I prefer to do is science magic in the back room, out of > sight. That is my natural habitat. I have discovered that. But if I have to > put that old hat back on .... I will. > > I also realise that this is not about me. This is about a new approach. > I may have to be happy just to foster it and set it free and accept that is > my part in it. Being nearly 60 I am realistic about my role in it. Build > the fire. Strike it. Let the youngsters loose. Make it fun. > > So I see the practical aspects of establishment of an IGI to be a little > less of a problem than Dorian might think. > > The meat of this? We have what Craig Venter has in terms of a novel > solution to an old problem. That idea also has at least the potential > impact of the human genome. What we don't have is Craig Venter's money. I > wish. I can tell you now that if I did I'd already be doing all of this. > There would already be an IGI and it would already have robots doing > things. Like Venter we do not need anyone's permission to do this. This has > been extremely frustrating for me. > > Yet .. I have a very honed appreciation of the academic approach. I > choose the business way forward because the process is 'solve a single > pesky problem' oriented. I am here to solve a problem. If I can't do that > then I will not be doing science at all. There is a history of 'one trick > scientists'. That's me. Discoverer of the neutrino, inventor of the blue > LED etc etc. Pigheaded stubbornness in pursuit of a single goal. > Additionally, if, like the original inventor of fire, a problem was solved > without knowing formally how (that comes after) then that is fine. In the > history of science the 'theory follows practice' model is my approach. AGI > is strangely under-represented in this approach. This problem could be > solved without any publishing whatever and without any theory.. Just by > enthusiasm and resources. But I would rather it find some sort of > equilibrium between the two extremes of academia/business. Yet another > hybrid, but with a business-structured approach. Like what Venter did. > Maybe the HTM progenitor.... Jeff Hawkins ... might see the IGI as > interesting? There are a bevy of the potentially interested to seek. > > Investors will look more favourably on the IGI as an IP factory rather > than a scientific paper factory. The reverse is the case for the academic > establishment. So we have to throw the dart and then maybe draw the > bullseye where it hits and sticks. That balance is a mystery to me. > > Example: I have been inside a $50,000,000 bionic eye project based on > academic-centric activity. Despite all that activity, the actual result is > lots of science knowledge, lots of new infrastructure, skill base .... and > an actual commercial outcome that is a too-late, too little camel designed > by an academic mandate to design and build a horse. I say that with > respect, knowing personally the head professor and involved with a paper > with him as we speak. (Thinks ... must get back to that). It doesn't work > well as a route to timely, appropriate tech or commerce outcomes. They > think they had success because of "number of patents" KPI. I want success > "solved the problem". Imagine what we could have done with $50,000,000. > Makes me grumpy. > > Unlike the bionic eye, H-AGI already has the tech infrastructure to > succeed. It's over-prepared through inattention as an option. The only > thing missing is a cultural recognition of a path that was always there but > never followed. It's not like we are even being radical in the deep sense > of science practice! It's a reversion to history. It's likely to have an > accelerated uptake in the IP department. > > We can kick business oriented structure ideas about a bit here if you > like. And potential people? Have a go! > > We are learning what it is like to encounter this possibility as a > group, together. We have a certain responsibility to do the best we can. > First footsteps on a new landscape and all. That sort of thing. I have > reverted to my opening remark... so I guess I am done! > > regards > > > > Colin Hales > *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/27079473-66e47b26> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Regards, Mark Seveland ------------------------------------------- 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
