Duncan and Ben, You are both absolutely convinced of the reasonableness of OSS, but I have yet to appreciate the vision outside of AGI research. This may be because I just haven't yet "seen the light".
The **BIG** barrier (for me) seems to be that reasonable investors want to see valuable IP come from their investments, which become valueless once they become "open". Of course there is one CRUCIAL exception, which might be what you are referring to: Often there are pieces of a project that you strongly suspect others could greatly improve upon. Keeping those proprietary BLOCKS others from helping your solve your own problems. In the case of present-day AGI, that includes pretty much everything non-textual, so OF COURSE OSS is the way to go right now. HOWEVER there is a better way in many situations: Patent what you have come up with. Patents claim ownership, but ONLY when you fully disclose what you are doing. If someone comes up with a better way, they can then patent their better way. Then, they can NOT use their better way if it includes using what you have already patented, and you cannot use their better way, UNLESS you make an agreement to use each other's technologies. This ends up working like OSS, only no one else gets to SELL what they do UNLESS they have contributed something important enough to obtain a patent to trade. This forces people to decide whether they are "in" enough to develop new technology and patent it; or are "out" where they can research all they want - but they can't sell what they have built; or lastly, they are willing to pay to use your work. This seems to be best for everyone UNLESS you plan to be a parasite who uses other people's work, but who contributes little/nothing to the field. IBM developed a variant of this method. If they want to use your patent, they offer license to use ANY/ALL IBM patents in return. Pretty much everyone accepts this deal. OK, now that I have explained my view, how about a good explanation of the workings of OSS to convince me that it is better outside of AGI where NOTHING is settled. I sure don't see how to raise millions of dollars on a plan to give away expensive work product. Please explain. Thanks for your help. Steve ========================= On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Duncan Murray <[email protected] > wrote: > I am working part time on an AI framework, which should evolve into a > knowledge framework / test environment. > > https://github.com/acutesoftware/AIKIF/blob/master/doc/AIKIF_requirements.rst > > I believe Open source is the only way it should/will get done, as I > wouldn't want any single entity 'owning' AI > > To answer your questions: > > 1. Yes, I have no desire to write compilers, OS's or BIOS ROMs > 2. For the high level abstracted things, I think it would be best to have > a single code base owned by one project. At least until version management > is absolutely solved in the language it is implemented in. > 3. Yes, see point 2 > > Cheers, > Duncan > > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Steve Richfield < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I noticed a different viewpoint to my discussion regarding my startup: >> >> ANY major AI/AGI project is going to need pretty much the SAME support >> software, regardless of whether it is weak AI or AGI. Many of the >> subsystems I was intending on building are the SAME subsystems anyone else >> developing other AI/AGI systems will need. For example: >> >> 1. A web crawler that scans the Internet and presents postings along >> with metadata (name, contact information, etc.) >> 2. An idiom dictionary, since natural language includes SO many >> idioms. You won't even be able to talk much with your AI/AGI without this. >> >> The early BIG money in computers was made in operating systems rather >> than in applications software. I suspect the same will be the case with >> AI/AGI. >> >> So, is anyone here interested in writing AI/AGI support software, or: >> >> 1. do you intend to use subsystems that other people write? >> 2. do you intend to write EVERYTHING needed to support AGI operation? >> 3. have you even thought about such issues? >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> *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/303/10443978-6f4c28ac> | > Modify > <https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> > Your Subscription <http://www.listbox.com> > -- Full employment can be had with the stoke of a pen. Simply institute a six hour workday. That will easily create enough new jobs to bring back full employment. ------------------------------------------- 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
