Charles Hixson wrote:
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 7:47 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?
I don't notice rudeness so much, but content-free posts (and posters
who don't learn) are a problem on this list. Low signal-to-noise
ratio. I'd say you are too tolerant in avoiding moderation, but
moderation is needed for content, not just "politeness".
Moderation for content is a "hard problem". E.g., different people
come to different decisions about what it useful content. Should
posts be limited to algorithms and sample programs (with minimal
explication)? Justify your answer.
Basically, there's no mechanical or semi-mechanical way to come to
even an approximation of limiting by content except either:
1) a person dedicated to screening. People *do* have opinions as to
what is useful content, even if they disagree.
2) a closed list. Only a few people are allowed to post. Privilege
revocable easily. Frequent warnings.
Those both require LOTS of management, and tend to foster rigid
attitudes.
I, too, would like to see more substantive posts...but I'm not sure
that an e-mail list is the place to look. A website where anyone
could start a blog about any thesis that they have WRT AGI would seem
more reasonable. Something like a highly focused Slashdot, only
instead of keying off news articles it would key off of "papers" that
were submitted.
But again, that, too, would require lots of human investment, even if
I feel it *would* be a more productive investment (if you could entice
people to write the papers).
A part of what this would facilitate is organization of material by
subject. Another part is a place to post "idea pieces" that are more
than just e-mails. This *isn't* a replacement for an e-mail list. It
*does* require organization by subject at a higher level. Probably a
lattice organization would be best, but also searchable key words.
Does such a thing exist? Probably not. That means that someone would
need to put in a substantial amount of time both organizing it and
writing scripts. And it would need a moderation system (ala
slashdot). So it's a substantial amount of work.
This means I don't expect it to happen. Independent fora aren't the
same thing, though they have a partial overlap. So do wiki. (Wiki may
be closer, but the original article shouldn't be modifiable, only
commentable upon.)
Note that it's very important for this to do the job that I'm proposing
that comments be moderated and the moderators be meta-moderated. These
articles are seen as being available for a long time, and significant
comments, ammendments, and additions need to be easy to locate.
I'm seeing this as a kind of an textbook, kind of an encyclopedia, kind
of an... well, make up your own mind. (And, as I said, it's probably
too much work for this community. Most of us have other projects. But
it would be a great thing at, say, a university. Might be a reasonable
project for someone in CS.)
-------------------------------------------
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
