Hmmm... With all the recent progress in deep learning for image processing, and near-term similar progress in deep learning for video processing, how can you claim only text-based AGI is feasible in the near future??
Current deep learning architectures are not AGI-capable, but they do demonstrate that awesome stuff can be done with videos and images on current computing infrastructure. Hardware has come a long way ;-) ben On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 1:57 PM, Steve Richfield <[email protected]> wrote: > 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> > <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 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
