I agree. I meant only that army(s) will have AGI anyway. And army is meant to not compete the civilian people, in fact in many cases it even helps (Internet). I don't know how much it would affect the civil area if army would have AGI earlier.
Márk
On 12/19/05, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark,
But a few years shift can make a huge difference if the "hard takeoff"
idea has any meat to it at all.
If group A gets to human-level AGI 3 years before group B, then in
that 3 years group A's AGI may already achieve a level of intelligence
allowing group A to acquire a great deal of power of various sorts.
-- Ben
On 12/19/05, Mark Horvath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Ben,
>
> I hope you are right, but anyway, the order of development does not make a
> huge difference. I think many organizations will develop it more or less
> (with few years shifting) simultaneously as the level of general technology
> and knowledge grows.
>
> Márk
>
>
> On 12/19/05, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Based on my somewhat but not completely thorough understanding of the
> > US military/intel community (I live near DC, have done some consulting
> > for the community, and know a lot of folks involved with it), I find
> > it very unlikely that they are seriously pursuing AGI R&D. However,
> > *watching* people involved with AGI is a lot simpler to carry out, and
> > I have little doubt this is occurring.
> >
> > -- Ben
> >
> > On 12/19/05, Mark Horvath <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think this is natural. I would do the same, if my job would be to lead
> the
> > > creation of AGI in any group you have mentioned; try to collect the best
> > > brains, and monitor (and store) all important development happening. And
> > > they have more money for the job than any university, or other research
> > > facilities, groups. And also, I dont think they are publishing all their
> > > results, so they have a some advantage in creating the first AGI (but
> > > luckily there are a lot of civil competitors).
> > >
> > > I can only hope that at least the first AGI will be friendly (for all
> > > humanity, and not a company or state), since in general they will be
> selfish
> > > concerning their owner (except if regulated centrally, like by Asimov).
> > >
> > > Bests,
> > > Márk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/18/05, Shane Legg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My AGI ideas continue to brew away, as they have done for many years.
> > > > I like to keep a fairly low profile for a few reasons, one being that
> > > every year
> > > > I realise how little I knew the previous year! I am however busy in
> my
> > > thesis
> > > > area of theoretical models of universal super intelligence (AIXI etc.)
> and
> > > so
> > > > publish and turn up in magazines etc. from time to time. I also write
> a
> > > blog
> > > > that gets a fair amount of daily traffic.
> > > >
> > > > Recently, however, it seems that I've somehow come to the attention of
> > > > certain groups. To start with I thought that the hits I was getting
> from
> > > various
> > > > military and military related companies were just random and part of
> the
> > > > growing number of hits that my blog and website were getting. But
> things
> > > > have since become more systematic, with military related aerospace
> > > > companies, various military bases and even a certain five sided
> building
> > > > doing automated scans of my research site, downloading my papers and
> > > > also scanning my blog.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah I know, that sounds crazy. I mean, if these people wanted to
> watch
> > > > me, they wouldn't be scanning my stuff using a computer with a
> Pentagon
> > > > or other high profile DNS addresses right? I'm sure that if they
> really
> > > wanted
> > > > to watch me they would be far more sneaky and I'd never know about it.
> > > > I can only presume that for what ever reason, they don't mind me
> knowing
> > > > that I'm being watched. I've also found out through other channels
> that I
> > > > have attracted some interest. So they aren't being very secret about
> it.
> > > >
> > > > Anyhow, I presume that the reason I'm attracting attention has
> something
> > > > to do with my research interests in models of super intelligence, AGI
> and
> > > > so on. I can't imagine that anything else about me could be of the
> > > slightest
> > > > interest to them at all.
> > > >
> > > > Which brings me to my question: Are we (people interested in AGI)
> > > > being watched?
> > > >
> > > > I'd always just presumed that we weren't considered very interesting,
> > > > at least, not yet.
> > > >
> > > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > -------
> > 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]
>
>
-------
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]
