James, I really don't think that these statements
> > On the other hand, if you have the mad computer science skills > required to produce AGI, maybe your time would be better spent > solving on of the myriad of other important problems in computer > science so that you can have both the quick money and reputation to > fund your own AGI program without having to deal with investors > demanding rigorous business plans. There are other interesting > problems that could be solved much more quickly and flipped for quick > cash without too much effort. > ... > > > If you are smart enough to create AGI, you are smart enough to game > the rules of the real world to your advantage without too much > effort; don't fight it, use it. It is a waste of effort discussing > how things "ought" to be. > are accurate. Navigating complex social and business situations requires a quite different set of capabilities than creating AGI. Potentially they could be combined in the same person, but one certainly can't assume that would be the case. And, I don't think it's fair to say that "if you're smart enough to solve AGI, you should be able to quickly make a pile of money doing some kind of more marketable technical-computer-science, and fund the AGI yourself." This assumes a lot of things, for instance that AGI is the same sort of problem as technical-computer-science problems, so that if someone can do AGI better than others, they must be able to do technical-computer-science better than others too. But I actually don't think this is true; I think that AGI demands a different sort of thinking. Again, AGI savvy may well come combined with great technical-computer- science savvy, but one can't assume that this must be the case. And, turning technical-computer-science savvy into a lot of $$ is by no means easy and requires either a lot of luck or an uncommon business savvy... All in all, it's just not correct to claim that "if you're smart enough to create an AGI, you're smart enough to get it funded amply." Look back at history, after all. Babbage was smart enough to create a computer, but evidently didn't have the right kind of smarts to actually get it done. Leibniz, before him, was smart enough to create a mechanical calculator (he designed one), but also didn't seem to have the right kind of smarts to actually get it done. Tesla, in a different domain, was damn smart, but made all sorts of bad decisions in terms of the productization of his technology, resulting in him having pathetically little research funding even after successfully creating AC power, robotics, radio and all sorts of other stuff. -- Ben G ----- 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=66465239-e5208e
