Linas, >revealing thier weaknesses and strengths to the competition.
Putting together functional AGI is a very difficult task. So far (more/less) failure after failure. Many critically important things are "hidden" in detailed design = sharing high level info isn't in most cases as risky (from business perspective) as you may think. It's rather helpful when more people do research in the direction you are following. There are so many possibilities how to do particular AGI related things that even when you have multiple projects following the same high level path, they will almost certainly end up being different in a number of important aspects. And look at the world. It's a mess with *lots* of unnecessary suffering. AGI can significantly help us to sort it out. This is not just about the business. It's about better future for mankind. Some people are intentionally giving their lives for less significant stuff. >Tell me again why *anyone* would want to fill this out? Because most AGI developers need all the help they can get. Try to put together well functional AGI dev team with very limited resources. I have great respect for the few who managed to do that. Regards, Jiri Jelinek On Nov 7, 2007 7:16 PM, Linas Vepstas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/?&; > ----- 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=62722604-c4221b
