There are a lot of worthwhile points in your post, and a number of things I don't fully agree with, but I don't have time to argue them all right now...
Instead I'll just pick two points: 1) The Babbages and Leibnizes of a given historical period are often visible only in HINDSIGHT. You can't say that there are no Babbages or Leibnizes of AGI around right now ... there could be some on this very list, unrecognized by you, but who will be recognized by all a few decades from now... 2) I don't think it's true that Babbage's or Leibniz's machines were specced out so much better than, say, Novamente. Relative to the technology of their time, plenty of details were left unspecified -- it just seems obvious to us now, in hindsight, how to fill in those details. It wasn't obvious to all their contemporaries. And while, in hindsight, the workability of their machines seems obvious to us, to their contemporaries it must have seemed like the workability of their machines required a huge leap of intuition. They had no rigorous mathematical proof of the workability of their machines, nor did they have working prototypes. They had conceptual arguments that pushed the boundaries of the science of their times, and seemed like nonsense to many of their contemporaries. 3) I don't agree that AGI is primarily a computer science problem, any more than, say, building a car is primarily a metalworking problem. AGI requires computer science problems to be solved as part of its solution; but IMO the essence of AGI-creation is not computer science. This seems to be a genuine difference of scientific intuition btw the two of us. Plenty of others whom I respect appear to share the same opinion as you. -- Ben G On Nov 18, 2007 11:04 PM, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 18, 2007, at 7:06 PM, Benjamin Goertzel wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I completely agree. But if we are to assume that AGI requires some > respectable amount of funding, as seems to be posited by many people, > then it seems that it will require a person with broader skills than > the stereotypical computer science nerd. In that case, maybe AGI is > not accessible to someone who is unwilling or unable to be anything > but a computer science nerd. As if the pool of viable AGI > researchers was not small enough already. > > > > 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. > > > I'm not so sure about this. All hard problems seem to receive > similar sentiments until they are actually solved. I do think that > AGI is a relatively hard problem even among the "hard problems", but > there are other computer science problems that had thousands of pages > of literature devoted to them without much progress that when they > were solved by someone turned out to be relatively simple. That > 20/20 hindsight thing. To the extent that there is any special sauce > in AGI, I expect it will look like one of these cases. > > Solving computer science problems is a pretty general skill, in part > because it is a pretty shallow field in most important respects. To > use AI research as an example, it is composed of only a handful of > fundamental ideas from which a myriad of derivatives and mashups have > been created. Most other problems in computer science have the same > feature, and when problems get solved it is because someone looked at > the handful of fundamentals and ignored the vast bodies of derivative > products which add nothing new. Vast quantities of research does not > equate to a significant quantity of ideas. AI is a little more > complex than some other topics, but is still far simpler at the level > of fundamentals than some people make it out to be. > > > People are incapable of solving AGI for the same reason they are > incapable of solving any of the other interesting computer science > problems, which was the point I was making obliquely. It is not a > different skill, it is the same skill that the vast majority of all > computer science people are incompetent at. And AGI is particularly > hard problem, even for that tiny minority of people capable of > solving real problems in computer science. > > If you cannot solve interesting computer science problems that are > likely to be simpler, then it is improbable that you'll ever be able > to solve really hard interesting problems like AGI (or worse, > Friendly AGI). I don't mean to disparage anyone doing AGI research, > but if they are incapable of solving the easy problems, why should > anyone expect them to solve the hard problems? > > > > > 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... > > > Definitely, that requires practice and skill. But someone that > develops that skill will be able to get commercial interest in their > AGI prototype at a far earlier stage than someone who does not. > > The question is which costs less, developing the business skills or > developing an AGI to the point where you don't need business skills? > One might be able to make an argument either way, but I suspect the > former is closer to the truth. The optimal path is rarely the path > anyone is most comfortable with. > > > > > 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. > > > The venture investment environment is far more favorable today, at > least in the US, than back then. But this is not really disagreeing > with my point in any case. Are you arguing that there was an > unambiguous market for these products at the time the inventors came > up with the ideas? And if so, why was it so hard to convince > everyone else? No one is making the claim that there is no market > for AGI today that I know of. > > If someone had an AGI as thoroughly designed and spec-ed as Babbage > or Leibniz, they would have little problem selling it, but the > reality is that we do not have an AGI market full of Babbage and > Leibniz, we have an AGI market for wannabes that aspire to being > Babbage or Leibniz. That is a distinction with a difference, and the > cases are not analogous. Babbage and Leibniz competently designed > things for which their was no market. A market exists for AGI, there > simply have been no Babbage's around to meet that market. > > Cheers, > > J. Andrew Rogers > > > ----- > 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/?&; > ----- 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=66478695-339a08
