it reminds me that old joke about three kinds of mathematicians ;-) On Nov 19, 2007 5:25 AM, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 18, 2007 11:24 PM, Benjamin Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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: > > > er, looks like that was three ;-) > > > > > > > > > 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/?&;
----- 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=66723189-c93fe4
