On 28/08/06, Russell Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/28/06, William Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We may well not have enough computing resources available to do it on
> the cheap using local resources. But that is the approach I am
> inclined to take, I'll just wait until we do.
Computing power isn't the only issue, and probably not the most important
one; what do you think an Outlook killer could do that Outlook doesn't
already do, and how would it know how to do it?
Things like hooking it up to low quality sound video feeds and have it
judge by posture/expression/time of day what the most useful piece of
information in the RSS feeds/email etc to provide to the user is. We
would have to program a large amounts of the behaviour to start with,
but also by the dynamics and mechanism we create it would get more of
an information about what the individual user wanted.
> The open source
> distibuted google killer will have the problem of who decides what
> goals the system has/starts with (depending upon your philosophy)
"Do what the users want you to do."
Hmm. Possibly what we are talking about is not so different.
> and
> how to upgrade the collective if the goals were incorrect to start
> with.
In the case of an open source AGI project, there would be no requirement
that all users form a collective as far as their goals are concerned, only
that they agree on running, maintaining and enhancing the software to serve
their separate goals, just as is the case with e.g. the Internet today.
Wouldn't interoperability be maintained by the same sort of pressures
that mean that everyones tweaked version of Open Office shares the
same file formats? The fact that the first mover that is incompatible
loses then benefits from remaining compatible?
Will
-------
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
