Shane, I fully agree with what you said.
My own plan for NARS is to publish the logic it used in detail (including the grammar of its formal language, the semantics, the inference rules with their truth-value functions), but, at the current time, not to reveal the technical details of the implementation (including the memory structure and control strategy), though the basic ideas behind them are already published. Pei ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane Legg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 4:42 AM Subject: [agi] Open AGI? > Hi all, > > I'm curious about the general sentiments that people have > about the appropriate level of openness for an AGI project. > > My mind certainly isn't made up on the issue and I can see > reasons for going either way. If a single individual or > small group of people made a sudden break through in AGI > design this would place a huge amount of power in their > hands. I could easily see this situation being dangerous. > On the other hand I'm not sure that I'd want too many people > knowing how to do it either! Already the world seems to > have a few too many people who have the detailed knowledge > required to build a working nuclear weapon for example. > > What are your thoughts? Surely this has been debated > many times before I suppose? > > Cheers > Shane > > ------- > To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, > please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
