Mike Tintner wrote:
[I wondered whether to post this; then seeing Bob M's post, I decided to}
Ben: Richard,
Though we have theoretical disagreements, I largely agree with your
analysis of the value of prototypes for AGI.Experience has shown
repeatedly that prototypes displaying "apparently
intelligent behavior" in various domains are very frequently dead-ends,
because they embody various sorts of "cheating."
Edison stuck it on his labs: "There is no expedient to which a man
will not resort to avoid the labour of thinking." Make that
"creative thinking" here.
Dennis is right: "The best investing practise is to invest only into
such teams that
produced working prototype already" Not a full, but a small protoype
that demonstrates a successful creative idea or two, and shows
creative promise of cracking the full problem. See how Jeff Hawkins
went about things. That's basic creative practice.
When people come to you saying the ideas - the miracles - will come
later, you don't invest in them, because the overwheming odds are
they're not addressing the creative problem, and never will. There
are so many would-be creatives trying that angle - check out
Hollywood. Both of you show no awareness of this basic psychology
of creativity - of how the philosophy you're expounding sounds
awfully like an excuse - and how many 'creative' excuses people make
for non-creativity.
What?!
Who said anything about "the ideas - the miracles - will come later"??
I, at least, am not taking any such position. Quite the contrary, I
have tried to set out the exact reasons why the development has to be
done in the way that I suggest.
You imply that there have been loads of prototypes already -
actually I don't think there has been a single one demonstrating
*general* intelligence, has there?
Eh? Exactly the opposite statement was made, was it not? There have
been no serious prototypes and neither Ben nor consider it sensible for
people to ask for such a thing.
An investor will want to know
what creative ideas you have that *directly* start to solve that
problem.
These are available! Both Ben and I have detailed plans. Neither of us
say "just trust me".
I think you might be getting confused about what is publicly available
on this list and what exists and is available for qualified investors to
examine.
Not excuses or "just trust me" or "look at my ideas about
something else entirely, like search algorithms or logic" or "this
is a v. v. complex project, so complex that it will take too long to
explain - just feel the width". Even Minsky can't get away with that.
P.S. From Bob M's post with which I so agree:
"I've heard people on AI forums make this claim many times over the
last 15 years - something like "I have discovered the secret of AI
!... but I'm not going to tell you what it is unless you give me a lot
of money". "
And as I said in my reply, those people certainly do exist, but neither
ben nor are in that category because we can explain exactly what it is
that we propose to do/are doing.
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=66346015-418ac4
