On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:38:40AM -0700, Derek Zahn 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. [...] > > Probably most people like that are not "serious contenders" in the sense > of having a complete detailed plan for achieving a full AGI.
And the "serious contenders" are a handful of small companies that seem unlikely to fill out a self-assesment status report card revealing thier weaknesses and strengths to the competition. Tell me again why *anyone* would want to fill this out? If I had some neat whiz-bang thing, I know enough marketing to know that I should emphasize what its great at, rather than placing large blaring red X's on the 19 check-boxes that it sucks at. I thought the point was to promote colaboration, but I don't see how. Do you really think you'll convince Cyc corp to use SUMO's upper ontology, or v.v.? Do you think that anyone working on a theorem prover will abandon it, to go work on NARS, or v.v? Most of the major projects already have articles on Wikipedia; I don't see much addition here except cruft. Maybe I missed the point; excuse me if I sound negative. --linas ----- 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=62688006-a84d36
