Dennis, > DARPA doesn't care about AGI now, because it cannot yield practical > military results within several years.
It IMO could if significant resources are correctly spend. I'm professionally working on a top secret military project that supports the war on terror and I can see there is lots of data that, if processed in smarter ways could make a huge difference in the world. This is not really a single domain narrow AI task (though the related projects - as currently developed - are rather narrow AIs). We badly need smarter machines. > Any successful AGI prototype would attract investors anyway. At this time, we still need investors spending money to develop prototypes. There are some, but the more the better. AGI R&D just takes time & money. > But while there is no such prototype -- there is no point to invest. Complex problems would hardly get solved if all investors think that way. > > 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. True, but more full time AGI folks wouldn't hurt. > 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? There are many hard problems to solve, including some which, if not solved correctly in relatively near future, could cause the money (made on those "better paying tasks") having only a fraction of its current value. AGI could do so much for us that it would be IMO worth to immediately stop working on all non-critical projects and temporarily spend as many resources as possible on AGI R&D. Regards, Jiri Jelinek ----- 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=66320750-6b536b
