I didn't buy igi.org
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Benjamin Kapp <[email protected]> wrote: > The igi.org domain no longer seems to be offering its self for sale when > I visit it. Did someone buy it already? > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Colin Hales <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Logan, >> >> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Logan Streondj <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 09:48:03AM +1000, colin hales wrote: >>> > Sorry about the previous empty. Phone issue. 10 thumbs. >>> > >>> > My particular flavour of the non-computer approach is irrelevant. I am >>> not pushing my own at all. >>> > >>> > Robot $ and kind irrelevant. I have the math you speak of. Wrong on >>> both counts. >>> > >>> > I do not care what kind of NC-AGI arises. All I know is that NC-AGI >>> important, neglected and needs a champion. >>> >>> okay so obviously you are the champion. >>> Why is it important? >>> >>> Because it's never been done. >> >> >>> you guys have been talking about it for a week now, >>> and I still have no idea why you think it has value. >>> >>> like lets be honest here, anything that isn't a computer or >>> technology is biology. so what you are really talking about >>> (seems to me) is biological-AGI, or connecting a vat of >>> brain-cells to a computer. >>> this has been done, and can play simple video games. >>> but so can deep neuronets on computers. >>> >> >> No it is not necessarily biology. H-AGI can use biological material or >> make inorganic versions of the biological substrate. Mine is totally >> inorganic. >> >> And while hooking bio material to other hardware has been done, it has >> not been done by anyone headed in the direction of an AGI. Pure wet >> neuroscience? Yes. Machine learning? Yes. Robot control? Yes. This >> particular approach is not what I intend. Dorian may be more interested in >> that. I don't want to stop anyone doing any of it just because it clashes >> with my own vision of it. >> >> >>> >>> >>> > So please set anything you think you know about me or my approach >>> aside. You actually know almost nothing and what little that is is >>> irrelevant to what is happening in this thread. >>> >>> okay so do you have some kind of proprietary secret approach? >>> >>> I was thinking you can Dorian can sign an NDA and then no one >>> will ever know about anything you guys do. >>> >>> personally I think that there are a lot of potential ethical >>> issues with using biological mediums for computation, also they >>> aren't particularly scalable or portable. >>> >>> >>> I can see scalability. I can see portability. I can see generativity. It >> will be clunky at first like all new ideas. It has an organic and an >> inorganic aspect. All untried as H-AGI. >> >> Both Dorian and I have written up and published everything that is needed >> to get your head round the fundamentals, which I know can be hard to see >> for those without the biophysics. We have both argued for a long time, one >> way or another, that the approach is novel. The one-liner explanation: >> >> *H-AGI is where the brain physics essential to an AGI is identified and >> included in an AGI substrate. This is achieved by actually replicating the >> physics (organic/inorganic, doesn't matter) and including that physics on >> the substrate then and testing its performance against alternatives that >> lack that physics (i.e. that might ignore it or model it, replacing it with >> the physics of the instantiation of the model, whatever that might be).* >> >> So it's rather simple. Both Dorian and I have identified candidate >> 'low-hanging fruit' physics. There may be others. That physics may be the >> crucial missing link that has dogged AGI for decades. If so, then all >> activity that did not include that essential physics was actually destined >> to underperform in mysterious ways that it is H-AGIs job to sort out. The >> IGI, if it existed, would do that. >> >> Yes there are heaps of ethical issues with any AGI approach. The H-AGI >> inorganic version will have one ethics/risk landscape, the H-AGI organic >> version another. Both of these will contrast with the C-AGI risk landscape. >> In what ways? I dunno! Let's find out! >> >> regards >> >> Colin Hales >> >> >> >> *AGI* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/26973278-698fd9ee> | >> 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/303/11721311-20a65d4a> | > 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
