Dennis Gorelik wrote:
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, ...
Here, I am afraid, I take a diametrically opposite position to yours.
There is something that *today* we might call "a set of AI-related
technologies" and the majority opinion is that these need to be
"constantly improved". I take a radically different stance, believing
that there is different approach to the problem that involves (a) a new
methodology and (b) a new standard design that is derived from human
cognition.
Because of this different approach, I see the possibility of a fast
track to AGI, completely unrelated to the speed at which current
technology is developing.
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?
A poor choice of words on my part: I meant that it would be disastrous
for the future of progress in AGI, because we will be waiting until the
cows come home for someone with a working prototype.
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.
I think you are have based your response, here, on something other than
the technical analysis that I proposed ... because when you say that:
Claiming that "incremental steps are impossible when we're trying to
copy Nature's accomplishments" is just wrong.
this does not match anything that I would claim.
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?
Investors will generally trust their intuitions about the person. I
have other ideas about how to convince them, but it is not easy.
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.
Like the Manhattan Project, where they were not sure that the technology
was feasible at all, and they had to do break-through research on a
number of fronts?
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.
Oh, no: this is just not true of the approach that I use. Unless you
modify the term "prototype" to include something that only shows the
bits and pieces of the puzzle, with gaps remaining to be filled through
experiment.
Billions of dollars would be exactly what I need: I have a need for a
large bank of parallelized exploration machines, and I have a need for
large numbers of research assistants to undertake specific tasks.
Richard Loosemore
-----
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=66344288-5e85d8
