Ben, On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Steve, > > As for taking >$10M in venture money, yes you have to do the legal > paperwork right and the $$ can come only from accredited investors, but > there is no rule about billionaires being involved; the criteria for being > a accredited investor are much weaker... > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accredited_investor#United_States > Quoting myself: "To make this work, a company MUST have someone on board whose friends collectively have >$1B. In my own case," You apparently missed the work "collectively", If you are looking for $100M, if your friends' assets totaled $1B, then each would have to invest 10%, which is probably TOO MUCH for such a speculative investment. > > Also -- I do know a couple billionaires personally, as it happens (and a > number of others close to that level); they are interested in AGI but > evidently I haven't convinced them to fund OpenCog amply at this point.... > One of the secrets of being friends with the wealthy is not constantly > asking them for money. By the same token, I also have some friends who are > immensely less financially well-off than me and I am happy that they do not > constantly ask me for funds, only would do so in an emergency situation ;/ > .... Human life has its complexities... > Most billionaires have someone else handling their investments. Your representative should approach THAT person, adding that the billionaire already knows you. > > The key issue is that, even if someone has massive wealth and believes AGI > is feasible and important, they still don't necessarily have a way to know > WHICH of the many approaches to AGI is really likely to succeed. They are > not experts. And if they choose to donate/invest in AGI they will tend to > ask the profs at the nearest big-name university what to donate/invest in; > and these profs tend to be fairly conservative minded.... > Here is my own analysis: With current hardware, only textual AGI (new term: TAGI) seems approachable, so if anyone is going to put out an AGI product in the next couple/few years it will have to TAGI, until we have many additional orders of magnitude in speed. The ONLY known approach to possibly doing TAGI faster than typing speed is to trigger processing on Least Frequently Used (LFU) words, and my patent covers the only known method of implementing such analysis. Apparently, the only difference between "weak" AI as I am shooting for and TAGI is that a TAGI implementation would have self-modifying tables, modified according to an algorithm that has yet to be discovered. The remainder of a TAGI absolutely **MUST** either: 1. be built on the same engine as the "weak" AI system, or 2. operate according to unknown principles which have remained undiscovered since the 1960s despite hundreds of bright PhDs working on the problem. So, not only do I apparently have the only game in town for the near-term, but I have a pretty good argument that the situation is going to stay that way. EVERYONE interested in TAGI should be working on the self-modifying table problem. Even if other methods are found, they can NOT be executed at useful speeds on current hardware. This is really simple - as not only is there is no other viable path, there is a good argument that no other path will be found in the foreseeable future. > > The easiest way to break through this -- if one wants to secure > substantial, stable funding for AGI rather than for development and > marketing of associated commercial products -- will be to make a cool > enough demonstrated achievement with one's in-progress AGI system, that > folks with spare wealth are willing to bet on your system as "the one" (or > at least a one) that will get there first. But of course this is difficult > because AGI is a hard problem and specifically because of the reasons I > outlined in > http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.kr/2011/06/why-is-evaluating-partial-progress.html > some time ago... > Or my plan - build a commercial AI system to fund further efforts, and then devote resources to piercing the self-modifying table problem that will run on the SAME platform. > > My current 3 year plan for OpenCog is aimed at overcoming these issues and > finally making enough practical progress to make a working demo system that > shows enough early-stage AGI to overcome the doubts of possible > donors/investors who are psyched about AGI in principle... > Dare I ask: What might this look like? > This should be easier now than 2-3 years ago due to the increased > popularity of AI overall, and the embrace of AGI as a concept by Google > Deep Mind and others with big names... and also because we have already > made loads of progress within OpenCog, even if not yet shinily > demonstrable. I think we can cobble together the resources to get the 3 > year plan done, but we'll see... ask me in 9 months if we're on the right > track or not ... or it may be obvious ;) ... > > OK, I'll mark my calendar. Steve ============================= > > On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:13 AM, Steve Richfield <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Ben, >> >> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Ben Goertzel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> which is TOO BIG to fund without an established cash flow, unless you >>>>>> can demonstrate magic like Facebook has done. Anything over $10M MUST be >>>>>> done as a public offering that requires SEC scrutiny that is there to >>>>>> BLOCK >>>>>> companies with big dreams but nothing to show. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's untrue, actually... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'll watch. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Silicon Valley companies routinely raise more than $10M in private >>> venture funding (e.g. Vicarious Systems' last round, to name an AI >>> example), so I'm not sure what you're talking about... >>> >> >> Yes - there is a narrow exception to this rule, derived from the 1st >> Amendment (where money is a form of "speech") and enshrined in SEC >> regulations covering "sophisticated investors" as defined as those who have >> "won and lost money" in the type of business raising the money. You are >> only allowed to approach 20 such investors. To cover their butts, Vicarious >> Systems actually lists their investors in their Wikipedia article. I once >> went through this same process with my own startup Remote Time-Sharing >> Corp. To make this work, a company MUST have someone on board whose friends >> collectively have >$1B. In my own case, I had two key board members - one >> of whom owned a local chain of banks, and both of whom were partners in a >> local stock brokerage firm that had a seat on the NYSE. >> >> This further makes my point that you can NOT raise such money from >> crowdfunding (to NON-sophisticated investors by SEC definition) or though >> any sort of public publication (that might be seen by non-sophisticated >> investors). Instead, if you want to raise >$10M without going through a >> public offering (that the SEC would probably block where it involved AGI >> R&D), you MUST do it by *approaching* <20 very rich people. To avoid >> exhausting your 20 on non-investors, "initial" discussions are usually >> "hypothetical". Note that for Vicarious Systems, several of those people >> own/control major corporations, but that those corporations were NOT >> investors - as this would have violated SEC rules because the investors in >> THOSE corporations were NOT "sophisticated". >> >> My statement was slightly over-broad, but my point is unchanged. If you >> are expecting to cross the $10M threshold, you had better have a REALLY >> GOOD plan. If you knew people who have billions of dollars, I presume this >> field would now be MUCH better funded. I suggest expanding your circle of >> friends. >> >> Steve >> ================================ >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> But Linux has prevailed without selling out to big companies (and >>>>> without Torvalds getting insanely rich, for that matter). And so may an >>>>> OSS AGI initiative, if things go well... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Linux is <<<1% of AGI and so makes a horrible model. There was nothing >>>> to do in Linux but code, because there was UNIX to copy, and UNIX is SO >>>> much simpler than YOU are. >>>> >>> >>> >>> An OS is very different than an AGI, but still the Linux development >>> model has things to teach us. >>> >>> The research aspect of AGI is different, but to help grapple with that >>> we can reach out to academics who can help with an OSS project consistent >>> with their university jobs, but couldn't join a commercial endeavor more >>> than very-part-time without quitting... >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> I suggest writing a business plan and putting it out there for people >>>> to pick at, and then including an addendum addressing people objections >>>> that you don't directly address in the plan. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Well, we have put together a 3 year development plan for OpenCog (not as >>> a business, as an OSS AGI project) and will be doing a corresponding >>> fundraising push probably in Q2 next year, after we get our demos, >>> documentation and tutorials cleaned up also..... But putting it out there >>> for people to pick at doesn't seem productive at this stage.... It has >>> already been critiqued by a number of experienced people, and tweaked a bit >>> as a result... >>> >>> > Until then, it is all smoke and mirrors. >>> >>> If you wish to perceive it as smoke and mirrors, that's just fine with >>> me, my friend ;) ... >>> >>> -- Ben >>> >>> >>> *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> >> <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 > > "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one > persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress > depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw > *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
