> > > My claim is that it's possible [and necessary] to split massive amount > > of work that has to be done for AGI into smaller narrow AI chunks in > > such a way that every narrow AI chunk has it's own business meaning > > and can pay for itself. > > You have not addressed my claim, which has massive evidence in the > history of AI research to date, that "narrow AI chunks" with AGI > compatibility > are generally much harder to build than "narrow AI chunks" intended > purely for > standalone performance, and hence will very rarely be the best economic > choice if one's goal is to make a narrow-AI chunk serving some practical > application within (the usual) tight time and cost constraints. >
I'd like to comment here - this all makes sense BUT - software for many reasons, and after myself watching and working with software of many types for many years, I'm still trying to figure it out - defies logic. Especially internally developed applications within companies, those applications which survive over the years, don't follow behaviors that you'd think they should. Many are conglomerated messes. The crystal clear software dies often. Why? Because it has to adapt to extreme conditions - basically business demands and interjections of business needs overpowers the forces of perfect engineering. And there are other forces, human, material, etc.. That's one of the reasons why I would say that somebody that creates an AGI design and gets x million $ startup cap will have a higher chance of failing than a software that has to slug it out to survive by becoming a conglomerated narrow AI/AGI hybrid mess. It's just weird and this happens often but not all the time of course. A stretch of an analogy is human DNA. Most of it is a conglomerated mess (90%+?) but somehow the grand human design result comes out of it. John ----- 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=69303611-cb1ba7
