Although I do suffer from an assortment of biases, I would not get worried to see any black man walking behind me at night. For example, if I saw Andrew Young or Bill Cosby walking behind me I don't think I would be too worried. Or, if I was walking out of a campus library and a young black man carrying some books was walking behind me, I would not be too worried about that either. Your statement was way over the line, and it showed some really bad judgment. Jim Bromer
----- Original Message ---- From: Steve Richfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:53:07 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Approximations of Knowledge Andy, This is a PERFECT post, because it so perfectly illustrates a particular point of detachment from reality that is common among AGIers. In the real world we do certain things to achieve a good result, but when we design politically correct AGIs, we banish the very logic that allows us to function. For example, if you see a black man walking behind you at night, you rightly worry, but if you include that in your AGI design, you would be dismissed as a racist. Effectively solving VERY VERY difficult problems, like why a particular corporation is failing after other experts have failed, is a multiple-step process that starts with narrowing down the vast field of possibilities. As others have already pointed out here, this is often done in a rather summary and non-probabilistic way. Perhaps all of the really successful programmers that you have known have had long hair, so if the programming is failing and the programmer has short hair, then maybe there is an attitude issue to look into. Of course this does NOT necessarily mean that there is any linkage at all - just another of many points to focus some attention to. Similarly, over the course of >100 projects I have developed a long list of "rules" that help me find the problems with a tractable amount of effort. No, I don't usually tell others my poorly-formed rules because they prove absolutely NOTHING, only focus further effort. I have a special assortment of rules to apply whenever God is mentioned. After all, not everyone thinks that God has the same motivations, so SOME approach is needed to "paradigm shift" one person's statements to be able to be understood by another person. The posting you responded to was expressing one such rule. That having been said... On 6/22/08, J. Andrew Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Somewhere in the world, there is a PhD chemist and a born-again Christian on another mailing list "...the project had hit a serious snag, and so the investors brought in a consultant that would explain why the project was broken by defectively reasoning about dubious generalizations he pulled out of his ass..." Of course I don't make any such (I freely admit to dubious) generalizations to investors. However, I immediately drill down to find out exactly why THEY SAY that they didn't stop and reconsider their direction when it should have been obvious that things had gone off track. When I hear about how God just couldn't have led them astray, I quote what they said in my report and suggest that perhaps the problem is that God isn't also underwriting the investment with limitless funds. How would YOU (or your AGI) handle such situations? Would you (or your AGI) ignore past empirical evidence because of lack of proof or political incorrectness? Steve Richfield ________________________________ agi | Archives | Modify Your Subscription ------------------------------------------- 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=106510220-47b225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
