On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 12:27 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Stefan Pernar wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Richard Loosemore > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote: > > <DELETED> > > > > Ben: I admire your patience. > > Richard: congrats - you just made my ignore list - and that's a > > first > > > > > > Another person who cannot discuss the issues. > > > > > > Richard - after having spent time looking through your stuff here is my > > conclusion: > > > > You postulate that "Achieving AGI requires solving a complex problem" > > and that you do not see this being properly incorporated in current AGI > > research. > > > > As pointed out by others this position puts you in the "scruffies" camp > > of AI research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neats_vs._scruffies) > > > > What follows are wild speculations and grand pie-in-the-sky plans > > without substance with a letter to investors attached. Oh, come on! > > > > PS: obviously my ignore list sucks ;-) > > > > Now, if I understand correctly, you got mad at me the other day for being > hypercritical of the AGI-06 conference (and frankly, I would agree with > anyone who said that I should have been less negative) .... but can you not > see that when you make vague, sweeping allegations of the above sort, you > are hardly rising above the kind of behavior that you just criticised? > Richard, there is no substance behind your speculations - zero. Zip. And all the fantasy and imagination you so clearly demonstrated here on the board wont make up for that. You make stuff up as you go along and as you need it and you clearly have enough time at your hand to do so. > All of the points you just made could be met, if you articulated them. > Scruffies? Some people only use that as a derogatory term: what did you > mean by it? I am not necessarily even a 'scruffy' by any accepted > definition of that term, and certainly not by the definition from Russell > and Norvig that I quoted in my paper. As far as I am aware, *nobody* has > accused me of being a scruffy ... it was actually me who first mentioned the > scruffy-neat divide! > Let's not use shady rhetoric here - shall we? You know exactly that scruffy refers to a technical distinction. How do you expect to be taken seriously if you try to manipulate like this? Not going to happen with me. "Wild speculations"? Which, exactly? "Grand pie-in-the-sky plans without > substance"? Again, what are you referring to? Don't these all sound like > Stefan's personal opinion? > Beside Kaj - can we see a show of hand who disagrees with me? Happy to step back and be quiet then. It is too often that people stay quite and let stuff like this slide. On all of these points, we could have had meaningful discussion (if you > chose), but if you keep them to yourself and simply decide that I am an > idiot, what chance do I have to meet your objections? I am always open to > criticism, but to be fair it has to be detailed, specific and not personal. > The lack of consistency and quality to your writings make it not worthwhile for me to point out particular points of criticism that would be even worth debating with you. It is not that there are two or three point that I do not understand. No - your whole concept is is an uninteresting house of cards to me. Your rhetoric is shady and dogmatic - you are unresponsive to substantial criticisms. No matter what people say you will continue to make up stuff and throw it right back at them - spiked with subtle personal attacks. In short you are not worth my time and the only reason why I am spending time on this is because I hope the list will wake up to it. Also, I am a little confused by the first sentence of the above. It implies > that you only just started looking through my 'stuff' ... have you read the > published papers? The blog posts? The technical discussions on this list > with Mark Waser, Kaj Sotala, Derek Zahn and others? > It did not take more than about an hour to look through all your stuff on your website so yeah - anything else I missed please send me a link. And although I think it is to much to ask to go through the many emails you wrote before I actually did that to and what I found only confirmed my opinion. For example: Kaj: I'd be curious to hear your opinion of Omohundro's "The Basic AI Drives" paper Richard: Omohundros's analysis is all predicated on the Goal Stack approach, so my response is that nothing he says has any relevance to the type of AGI that I talk about (which, as I say, is probably going to be the only type ever created). Stefan: Utter nonsense and not worthy of learned debate. -- Stefan Pernar 3-E-101 Silver Maple Garden #6 Cai Hong Road, Da Shan Zi Chao Yang District 100015 Beijing P.R. CHINA Mobil: +86 1391 009 1931 Skype: Stefan.Pernar ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=101455710-f059c4 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
