Re: [agi] Why so few AGI projects?

[Andrew Babian]

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:04:31 +0300, Joshua Fox wrote > I'd like to raise a FAQ: Why is so little AGI research and development being done? I think this is a very good question.  Maybe the problem has just been daunting.  It seems like only recently have there really started to be some good theoretical models, and maybe people just haven't realized that it may have just become reasonable.  So maybe some is inertia.  I'm in town here with Stan Franklin, who is one of those working on a general model, though I don't work with his group.  He's had a relationship with the cognitive science people at the university here, and is glad to be able to do "real science".  And it does seem like the computer people and psychologists really are in separate worlds and are not that into reaching out.  I remember talking to a cog psych graduate student who seemed to have interests in understanding how mings might work.  But I'm from an engineering background, and talking to her, it seemed like she came out and said she was only interested in how people work, and had no interest in how to get a machine to do it.  A matter of priorities and interest, then, perhaps.  As for the principles, I also seem to remember that they had some trouble getting the primary cognitive psychologist to get that interested in helping with the theoretical psychology because he had so many other things he was working on.  My exposure to that group was very limited though, but I remember getting that feeling.  And, they have a cog sci seminar where really try to get the computer people to work with the psychologists, but a semester is too short.  I suppose I need to find out if there are any deeper collaborations going on. > The answers of Goertzel, Moravec, Kurzweil, Voss, and others all agree on this (no need to repeat them here), and I've read Are We Spiritual Machines, but I come away unsatisfied. (Still, if there is nothing more to say on this question, please do the AGIRI-equivalent of sniping this thread immediately.) I haven't looked at them recently or deeply enough to know what their common conclusion must be, so I would like to hear what you mean by this. > What would s/he say if I asked "Why do you not pursue or support AGI research? Even if you believe that implementation is a long way off, surely academia can study, and has studied for thousands of years, impractical but interesting pie-in-the-sky topics, including human cognition? And AGI, if nothing else, models (however partially and imperfectly with our contemporary technology) essential aspects of some philosophically very important problems." But maybe it is just because the  noticeable results and applications (and therefore the money) don't seem to be there.  I guess that's probably my excuse.  But I need to thank Ben for putting the Agiri conference video stuff up.  One thing I got from them is that maybe we do have the theory and computer power now, so it is a doable thing.  And maybe a single person can do a reasonable general project, so I'm thinking of getting back started on doing some things, though it's going to have to be after hours stuff.  I still need a day job. andi This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]