On 01/11/2007, Jiri Jelinek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > a) how important AGI is
If you're main focus is the short term - say the next five to ten years - then AGI is probably not very important and you can get by largely with the technologies which are currently available (or faster/cheaper versions of them). If you're interested in the longer term on a scale of decades or centuries then AGI is going to be extremely important, bringing about substantial changes. > b) how many dev teams seriously work on AGI Very few. > c) how many investors are willing to spend good money on AGI R&D I don't spend a lot of time with investors, but my industry experience suggests that this number is also very few. Investors may be very willing to spend good money on AI projects - specialised systems which have a specific end product - but that's not really what AGI is about. > I believe AGI does need promoting. And it's IMO similar with the > immortality research some of the Novamente folks are involved in. It's > just unbelievable how much money (and other resources) are being used > for all kinds of nonsense/insignificant projects worldwide. Oh yes there's a high noise to signal ratio. > "cannot predict" - I agree. > "cannot control" - I disagree. Controlling goals, subgoals, and the > real world impact (possibly using independent narrow AI tools) will do > the trick. Prediction and control are two sides of the same coin. If you can to some extent predict the behavior of a system you stand some chance of influencing it. ----- 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=8660244&id_secret=59816653-8ef1ee
