On 6/16/07, Panu Horsmalahti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps people are more interested in the design of this AGI project, and
the likelyhood of it ever creating an human-level AGI. Also, are design changes chosen democratically, by a leader/lead designer (you?), or how? I'm also concerned, that too much time (man-hours if you will) is spend determining the 'contributions'/rating code, relative to the time spend actually creating the AGI.
All decisions will be made democratically, perhaps mediated by a managerial board. I play no "special" role. "Branching" is allowed and unlimited. If there're too few people, we may simply rely on informal trust and skip the voting system. But there's got to be a way to get out of all this incessant and fruitless arguing. My personal AGI theory is explained in: http://www.geocities.com/genericai/TOC.htm I don't try to impose my ideas on others, and I'm open to suggestions. It should be understood that the ideas thereof are constantly evolving. What frustrates me is that there's very little technical and in-depth discussion going on. That's why I think we need a new collaborative environment. So, you think my design is "Singularity-grade"? Is it in the ballpark of what you have in mind? =) BTW, my AGI is not "purely symbolic" or "non-mathematical". See FAQ #9: http://www.geocities.com/genericai/FAQ.htm#9 YKY ----- 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/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
