Yes we do. The willingness of some members (especially Loosemore) to engage in antisocial behavior is very counterproductive. Stefan
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think Ed's email was a bit harsh, but not as harsh as many of Richard's > (which are frequently full of language like "fools", "rubbish" and so forth > ...). > > Some of your emails have been pretty harsh in the past too. > > I would be willing to enforce a stronger code of politeness on this list if > that is what the membership wants. I have been told before, in other > contexts, that I tend to be overly tolerant of rude behavior. > > Anyone else have an opinion on this? > > Ben > > On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter. >> I have posted such in the past on the list and had seriously been >> considering doing so again (and your e-mail inspired me to do so). Ed is >> abusive, plain and simple. There was no reason for this last thread that he >> started except to shout down Richard's criticisms. Personally, I have given >> up on posting content to this list. Some moderation is strongly suggested. >> If it includes banning me -- so be it. >> >> Mark >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Saturday, August 02, 2008 10:29 PM >> *Subject:* **SPAM** Re: [agi] EVIDENCE RICHARD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND >> COMPLEX SYSTEM ISSUES THAT WELL >> >> >> Richard, >> >> FYI, I find that I agree in essence with nearly all of Ed Porter's >> assertions on scientific and technical issues, although I sometimes think he >> overstates things or words things in an inexact way. >> >> Also, I note that over the last couple years I have received a number >> (maybe 5-10) of emails from various individuals suggesting that you be >> banned from this email list for general unproductive "trolling" behavior. I >> have never received any comparable emails regarding Ed Porter. >> >> Anyway I don't personally have much patience for these overheated email >> battles, though I accept that they're part of the culture of email lists. >> >> I think your views are largely plausible and respectable, though I find >> you also tend to overstate things, and you sometimes implicitly redefine >> common terms in uncommon ways which I find frustrating. However, I find it >> irritating that you diss other people (like me!) so severely for guiding >> their research based on their own scientific intuition, yet display such a >> dramatic level of confidence (IMO overconfidence) in your own scientific >> intuition. AGI is a frontier area where as yet little is solidly known, so >> knowledgeable and intelligent experts can be expected to have different >> intuitions. You seem distressingly unwilling to "agree to disagree", >> instead recurrently expressing negative emotion toward those whose >> not-fully-substantiated intuitions differ too much from your own >> not-fully-substantiated intuitions. It's boring, even more than it's >> frustrating. And I'm feeling like a butthead for wasting my time writing >> this email ;-p >> >> ben >> >> On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 10:15 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> >>> Ed, do you not remember making this accusation once before, and asking >>> for people to step forward to support you? On that occasion you had a sum >>> total of ZERO people come forward with evidence or support for your >>> accusations, and on the other hand you did get some people who said that I >>> had been honest, technically accurate, willing to admit mistakes, never >>> gratuitously insulting and always ready to take the time to address any >>> questions in a prompt and thorough manner. >>> >>> Does it not matter to you that you failed on that previous occasion? How >>> many times will you repeat this before giving up? >>> >>> Now, under other circumstances I would ask you to provide some evidence >>> for these allegations, and then I'd take some time to examine that evidence >>> with you. However, my previous experience of examining your accusations is >>> that your comprehension of the subject is so poor that you quickly tangle >>> yourself up in a confusing web of red herrings, non sequiteurs and outright >>> falsehoods, and then you jump out of the wreckage of the discussion holding >>> a piece of abject nonsense in your fist, screaming "Victory! I have proved >>> him wrong!". >>> >>> When you have done that in the past, there has been nothing left for I >>> and the other sensible people on this list to do except shake our heads and >>> give up trying to explain anything to you. >>> >>> Consult an outside expert, if you dare. You will get an unpleasant >>> surprise. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Richard Loosemore >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ed Porter wrote: >>> >>>> Richard, >>>> >>>> I don't think any person on this list has been as insulting of the ideas >>>> of >>>> others as much you. You routinely describe other people's ideas as >>>> "rubbish" or in similarly contemptuous terms, often with no clear >>>> justification, and often when those you insult have not been previously >>>> insulting you. >>>> So you have no right to be self righteous. >>>> >>>> And if you are at all concerned with honesty and truth --- rather than >>>> personal pomposity --- you would listen to what I and many others on >>>> this >>>> list have said about how often you have been clearly wrong, and how >>>> often >>>> your arguments have been dishonest. >>>> >>>> Richard, I think you are an intelligent guy. It is a shame your >>>> intelligence is not freed from the childishness, and neediness, and >>>> dishonesty of your ego. >>>> >>>> Ed Porter >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, >>>> August 02, 2008 6:23 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [agi] EVIDENCE RICHARD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND COMPLEX SYSTEM >>>> ISSUES THAT WELL >>>> >>>> >>>> Priceless! :-) >>>> >>>> Just how far does someone have to go on this list - in the way of >>>> sending gratuitous torrents of personal abuse - before the list moderators >>>> at least rebuke them, if not ban them outright? >>>> >>>> >>>> Richard Loosemore >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ed Porter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Richard Loosemore is at it again, acting as if he knows so much more >>>>> about complex system issues than most everybody else on this list, by >>>>> dumping on Novamente and OpenCog because they do have his "RL" view >>>>> complex >>>>> system issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But what is the evidence that Richard, in fact, know more than the rest >>>>> of us on these issues? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In fact, it is very scant. His writings on the subject that I have >>>>> read either (a) describe things most of us know about, such as the "game >>>>> of >>>>> life" or Wolfram's concept of computational irreducibility, or (b) make >>>>> statements that are totally unsupported, or, in some cases, obviously >>>>> >>>> wrong. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The biggest piece of evidence of just how wrong Richard can be on the >>>>> subject related to "RICHARD'S FOUR FEATURES OF DESIGN DOOM" (my >>>>> nomenclature), a combination of features which Richard wrote in April of >>>>> this year in his blog www.susaro.com <http://www.susaro.com/> made it >>>>> impossible to design any sort of system, AGI or otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Richard wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored information about what it was >>>>> doing fifteen minutes ago, when it is making a decision about what to do >>>>> now? An hour ago? A million years ago? Whatever: if it remembers, then >>>>> it has memory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Development. Does the mechanism change its character in some way >>>>> over time? Does it adapt? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Identity. Do individuals of a certain type have their own unique >>>>> identities, so that the result of an interaction depends on more than the >>>>> type of the object, but also the particular individuals involved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Nonlinearity. Are the functions describing the behavior deeply >>>>> nonlinear? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These four characteristics are enough. Go take a look at a natural >>>>> system in physics, or an engineering system, and find one in which the >>>>> components of the system interact with memory, development, identity and >>>>> nonlinearity. You will not find any that are understood. >>>>> >>>>> ". >>>>> >>>>> "Notice, above all, that no engineer has ever tried to persuade one of >>>>> these artificial systems to conform to a pre-chosen overall behavior.." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In response to my email copied below I received multiple emails that >>>>> showed systems having these four features have, in fact, been designed and >>>>> built for years, and have, in fact, worked generally as designed, >>>>> Finally >>>>> Richard substantially retracted his statement by restating it to say, in >>>>> effect, the above FOUR FEATURES OF DESIGN DOOM would make it impossible to >>>>> design a powerful AGI --- without any clear standard for determining at >>>>> what >>>>> scale design doom would set in. >>>>> >>>>> But even Richard's modified statement concerning the FOUR FEATURES OF >>>>> DESIGN DOOM, appears to be based on little more than Richard's hunch. In >>>>> fact, partial evidence of its falsehood is presented by the Googleplex. >>>>> The >>>>> Googleplex very arguably has each of the above features, as defined in the >>>>> article, in vast quantity, and it functions generally as designed, and it >>>>> is >>>>> a type of intelligence. So the issue of what types of systems having >>>>> these >>>>> four features can be largely designed --- and which cannot --- is much >>>>> more >>>>> complex than Richard's statements have indicated --- at least, in the >>>>> relatively small percent of his posts I have read since. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Obviously in a Novamente or OpenCog AGI system the FOUR FEATURES OF >>>>> DESIGN DOOM and, more importantly, the much large role self organization >>>>> would play --- not only for representation, but also for behavior, >>>>> including >>>>> behaviors that control operation of the system itself --- is likely to >>>>> increase the gnarliness of the system. But it is far from clear, as >>>>> Richard >>>>> contends, that such gnarliness cannot be controlled sufficiently to get an >>>>> AGI that works generally as planned (at least to the extent that most >>>>> human >>>>> babies work generally as planned). Such self organized gnarliness is >>>>> reasonably controlled in the human brain. We understand many of the >>>>> mechanisms the brain uses to accomplish such control, and, if you read >>>>> Ben's >>>>> work, you will note that a lot of attention has been paid how to deal with >>>>> some of these control issues. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SO THE GRAND PUBA WAS WRONG, on one of the few instances (that I have >>>>> read) when he has ever tried to clarify his grand puba thoughts on RL >>>>> complexity. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I do not think Richard lacks intelligence. Some of his posts have been >>>>> very insightful and well reasoned. And the problem of getting complex >>>>> systems that rely heavily on self organization to function as desired >>>>> could >>>>> prove very significant, as Ben has agreed. >>>>> >>>>> But since Richard so insanely over stated the problems of complexly >>>>> issues in his FOUR FEATURES OF DESIGN DOOM blog article quoted above, and >>>>> since he was relatively slow to retract such overstatement when first >>>>> questioned, and since he retracted version of the statement had no proof >>>>> or >>>>> solid reasoning behind it, we have strong reason to believe he is still >>>>> grossly overestimating the problem. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't know why Richard is so irrational on this subject. I think it >>>>> has to do with the fact RL complexity issues are where his ego flag is >>>>> planted. And since his sense of self importance is so invested in it, >>>>> emotions prevent him from thinking about it objectively. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If Richard were motivated more by trying to understand the truth, and >>>>> less by wanting to feel smarter than everyone else, I think he could >>>>> contribute much more to this list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ed Porter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> P.S. >>>>> >>>>> To be fair I have read much less of Richard's posts since the FOUR >>>>> FEATURES OF DESIGN DOOM flap, because I came to the conclusion that >>>>> Richard, >>>>> although occasionally insightful, is often full of hot air. It is possible >>>>> that he has made much more intelligent and well justified statements on >>>>> the >>>>> subject of RL complexity since then. But from my quick skimming of >>>>> roughly >>>>> a 1/3 of his posts since then ---- I have no reason to think so. >>>>> >>>>> EWP >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> *From:* Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 24, 2008 10:48 AM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* DO RICHARD'S FOUR FEATURES OF DESIGN DOOM ACTUALLY PREVENT >>>>> DESIGNABILITY >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I have quoted below, in his susaro.com blog, Richard Loosemore >>>>> states any system with MEMORY, ADAPTATION, IDENTITY (individuals within a >>>>> type), and NON-LINEARITY cannot be understood, nor can it be designed to >>>>> have a desired overall behavior >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I WOULD APPRECIATE IF OTHERS ON THIS LIST WOULD CHIP IN WITH THEIR >>>>> EVIDENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THIS IMPORTANT TOPIC --- because it is a >>>>> key issue in determining whether or not we should believe much of the FUD >>>>> (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt -- an old IBM sales term for denigration of >>>>> competitive products) Richard has been spreading to say traditional >>>>> approaches to AGI design, including those used by Ben et al. for >>>>> Novamente, >>>>> are dead meat because of unsolvable problems with the type of complexity >>>>> he >>>>> defines (i.e., RL-complexity).. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is my strong hunch Richard's statement about these four features of >>>>> design doom is provably false. It is my hunch that many AI systems with >>>>> these four features have been built and have worked roughly as designed >>>>> --- >>>>> but in my below copied post I said off the top of my head I could not >>>>> think >>>>> of any, and by that I meant any I knew have been built and have worked >>>>> roughly as planned and knew for sure had all the four features of doom. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe that Novamente, if it would built, would have all the four >>>>> features of design doom, as apparently does Richard from his many >>>>> anti-Novamente statements. So, I am guessing, would Joscha Bach's >>>>> MicroPSI, >>>>> Stan Franklin's LIDA, and Laird et al.'s SOAR - all of which have been >>>>> built >>>>> and, as I understand it, work --- presumably with a fair amount of >>>>> experimentation thrown in --- somewhat as designed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would not be even be surprised if the fluid grammar Stephen Reed is >>>>> working on has all four of these features of doom. (Stephen, please tell >>>>> me >>>>> if this is true or not.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It appears from Stephen's Apr 21 2008 - 5:16pm post about fluid grammar >>>>> that it has (1) MEMORY, because it records individual new words and >>>>> phrases >>>>> it sees occurring in text before --- (2) DEVELOPMENT because its ability >>>>> to >>>>> properly parse adapts over time, through learning from the text --- (3) >>>>> IDENTITY because I assume it classifies its individual word forms, words, >>>>> and/or phrases within classes (Here I am guessing, Stephen, please correct >>>>> me if I am wrong), --- and (4) ---NON-LINEARITY, because presumably >>>>> performs >>>>> many of the types of non-linear functions, such as thresholding and yes/no >>>>> decision making, that would be used in almost any AGI such as Novamente. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Richard has been using notions of RL-complexity to spread "FUD" against >>>>> many other people's approach to AGI. After much asking, he has now tried >>>>> to >>>>> justify his denigration of others work on his susaro.com blog. So far >>>>> a significant part of his objection to such work is based on the above >>>>> four >>>>> features of design doom. >>>>> >>>>> SO PLEASE SPEAK UP THOSE OF YOU ON THIS LIST WITH ANY EVIDENCE OR SOUND >>>>> ARGUMENTS --- PRO OR CON --- ABOUT WHETHER RICHARD'S "FOUR FEATURES OF >>>>> DESIGN DOOM" ACTUALLY DO DOOM ENGINEERING OF AGI SYSTEMS, SUCH AS >>>>> >>>> NOVAMENTE. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> *From:* Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:06 PM >>>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>>> *Subject:* RE: [agi] Adding to the extended essay on the complex >>>>> systems problem >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In your blog you said: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Memory. Does the mechanism use stored information about what it was >>>>> doing fifteen minutes ago, when it is making a decision about what to do >>>>> now? An hour ago? A million years ago? Whatever: if it remembers, then >>>>> it has memory. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Development. Does the mechanism change its character in some way >>>>> over time? Does it adapt? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Identity. Do individuals of a certain type have their own unique >>>>> identities, so that the result of an interaction depends on more than the >>>>> type of the object, but also the particular individuals involved? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "- Nonlinearity. Are the functions describing the behavior deeply >>>>> nonlinear? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> These four characteristics are enough. Go take a look at a natural >>>>> system in physics, or an engineering system, and find one in which the >>>>> components of the system interact with memory, development, identity and >>>>> nonlinearity. You will not find any that are understood. >>>>> >>>>> ". >>>>> >>>>> "Notice, above all, that no engineer has ever tried to persuade one of >>>>> these artificial systems to conform to a pre-chosen overall behavior.." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I am quite sure there have been many AI system that have had all four >>>>> of these features and that have worked pretty much as planned and whose >>>>> behavior is reasonably well understood (although not totally understood, >>>>> as >>>>> is nothing that is truly complex in the non-Richard sense), and whose >>>>> overall behavior has been as chosen by design (with a little >>>>> experimentation >>>>> thrown in) . To be fair I can't remember any off the top of my head, >>>>> because I have read about many AI systems over the years. But recording >>>>> episodes is very common in many prior AI systems. So is adaptation. >>>>> Nonlinearity is almost universal, and Identity as you define it would be >>>>> pretty common. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, please --- other people on this list help me out --- but I am quite >>>>> sure system have been built that prove the above quoted statement to be >>>>> false. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ed Porter >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Richard Loosemore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 4:11 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: [agi] Adding to the extended essay on the complex systems >>>>> problem >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yesterday and today I have added more posts (susaro.com) relating to >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>> definition of complex systems and why this should be a problem for AGI >>>>> >>>>> research. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Richard Loosemore >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> 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/?&; >>>>> >>>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> **agi** | Archives <http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> < >>>>> http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/>| Modify < >>>>> http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> < >>>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | Modify < >>>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;> Your Subscription [Powered by >>>>> Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> agi >>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>>> Modify Your Subscription: >>>> https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------- >>>> agi >>>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> agi >>> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now >>> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ >>> Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?&; >>> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ben Goertzel, PhD >> CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC >> Director of Research, SIAI >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first >> overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> >> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | >> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription >> <http://www.listbox.com> >> > > > > -- > Ben Goertzel, PhD > CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC > Director of Research, SIAI > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must be first > overcome " - Dr Samuel Johnson > > > ------------------------------ > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > -- 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: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=108809214-a0d121 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
