Let me give a couple of examples: 1) John Doe is interested in developing Friendliness theory, with the goal of producing well-defined constraints that could be integrated into an AGI project. 2) Jane Smith has an idea for a fully general-purpose knowledge representation scheme based on "Procedural Bayesian Semantics" and is working out the details. 3) A non-theoretical researcher believes that intelligence is equivalent to text compression and sets up a detailed testbed to track how better text compression algorithms relate to concept and language models. None of these are "Narrow AI" in the usual meaning of that term, but none of them have a well-defined path for spitting out Hal 9000 in five years either. It would be nice to have a place where such work could be listed. I know I would like to have a sense for all the interesting AGI-related ideas being pursued by people. The number of true non-delusional AGI development efforts can be counted on the fingers of one maimed hand. The amount of potentially interesting AGI-related "research" is much larger.
> Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 11:07:16 -0500> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: > [email protected]> Subject: Re: [agi] Connecting Compatible Mindsets> > > Derek,> > My suggestion would be:> If the individual's goal (the section #1 > on my list) is to develop AGI> then I would say yes. Filling all sections > would be optional. If the> goal is just to support AGI by developing > [possibly narrow AI]> components useful for AGI then no (could be somehow > listed> separately).> > Regards,> Jiri Jelinek> > On Nov 7, 2007 10:38 AM, > Derek Zahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> >> > A large number of individuals on > this list are "architecting" an AGI> > solution (or part of one) in their > spare time. I think that most of those> > efforts do not have meaningful > answers to many of the questions, but rather> > intend to address AGI > questions from a particular perspective. Would such> > people be encouraged > to fill this out, even though they might only answer a> > couple of the > numbered points?> >> > Probably most people like that are not "serious > contenders" in the sense of> > having a complete detailed plan for achieving > a full AGI. Rather they think> > a particular aspect or approach is not being > given enough attention and hope> > to explore part of it to see if their > ideas merit further development.> >> > I could see wanting to include or > exclude such amateur efforts, depending> > on the goals of this database. > Perhaps a separate section would be a good> > idea for such people to provide > a brief unstructured summary of their> > interests and ideas.> >> >> >> > > ________________________________> >> > 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/?&;> > -----> 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/?&; ----- 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=62472365-07f2f4
