Jiri, > To DARPA, but some spending rules should go with it. In collaboration > with universities and the AGI community, they IMO should: > 1) Develop framework(s) for AGI testing.
DARPA cares about technology that help improve military within few years. At this time that may be weak AI partially replacing soldiers. DARPA doesn't care about AGI now, because it cannot yield practical military results within several years. I think that is correct approach. > 3) Have a huge $ prize for AGIs that score highest in an annually (?) > held AGI competition - which should make it attractive enough for > investors/companies to get [more] involved. Any successful AGI prototype would attract investors anyway. But while there is no such prototype -- there is no point to invest. > 5) Have some level of democracy in spending related decisions. There is very high level of investment democracy already. Investors can invest their money into whatever they like. > Many bright folks would IMO like to work on AGI full time but limited > resources force them to focus on other stuff. "Other stuff" is also important. It could be program that improves health care efficiency or "genome research" project. Why do you think AGI is more important than other better paying tasks? ----- 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=66316047-a80f3c
