Richard, > Although this seems like a reasonable stance, I don't think it is a > strategy that will lead the world to the fast development (or perhaps > any development) of a real AGI.
Nothing would lead to the fast development of a real AGI. The development would be slow. It would be about constantly improving AI related technologies, trying to apply them, finding problems, fixing them, making next step in research & development, ... > I agree you would not just pick researchers at random, but on the other > hand if you insist on a team with a "working prototype" this might well > be a disaster. How that would be a disaster? The worst thing that could happen -- AGI (strong AI) would be developed few years later than it could. Note, that AGI is not useful for us by itself. We want it to serve us. Funding AGI without focusing on practical gain would probably produce useless results (if any). > I am in a position to use massive investment straight away (and I have a > project plan that says how), but the specific technical analysis of the > AGI problem that I have made indicates that nothing like a 'prototype' > is even possible until after a massive amount of up-front effort. That's not true. Evolution worked its way from single cell to intelligent species in a very graduate fashion. Claiming that "incremental steps are impossible when we're trying to copy Nature's accomplishments" is just wrong. > Catch 22. No prototype, no investment; no investment, no prototype. > Investors are leery of "sorry, no prototype!" claims (with good reason, > generally) but they are also not tech-savvy enough to comprehend the > technical analysis that tells them that they should make an exception in > this case. If you want to claim an exception in your case -- the burden of proof is on you. Do you have any reasonable proof that your team would be successful exception from "no prototype - no investment" rule? In general I know, that successful research usually doesn't need massive investments. It needs small team of bright people, who could work part time. Money don't really help in break-through research. Money can help to bring proven idea to production though. If you cannot develop AGI prototype that would be able to make decisions properly in safe and convenient environment (convenient input, lots of time, limited help from development team) -- then pouring billions of dollars into the project wouldn't help at all. ----- 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=66310072-f837bd
