I think I have a better idea.
I believe the problem has to do with assumptions. If I have an AI system that assumes an AGI can be made without using the human model, most comments by people who believe the opposite aren't worth much. Instead of some helpful criticism of the AGI I might be proposing, people get into a pissing contest over the assumptions (basic beliefs that can't be proven one way or the other) instead of helpful information about the idea being discussed. My proposal is to use a link in our emails that states what assumptions that poster is using and then all valid comments must take those assumptions into account in their argument. This wouldn't stop discussion of those fundamental assumptions but it should stop people continuously talking past each other because they are using a different set of assumptions that further arguments are based on. I think I could make contributions to projects and ideas that I don't think will create an AGI but in thinking and discussing others ideas, it might spark some good ideas that could help me. If someone just wants to continually argue that AGI is impossible or even that certain ways of going about AGI are worthless, why not just keep it to yourself? We don't all have to agree on the best way of creating an AGI for this list to be useful. Just stating that something is wrong when almost everything we discuss hasn't been proven one way or the other isn't helpful. If some threads aren't interesting then don't read them. If we could set a ink to the assumptions for a thread and then comment using those assumptions, I think the content/noise ratio would be increased substantially. David Clark From: Ed Porter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: August-03-08 1:19 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [agi] META: do we need a stronger "politeness code" on this list? I think my email about Richard has spurred some valuable discussion. Here is a proposal for how to make this list work better. Unfortunatly it would involve some web coding, something I am not sufficiently up to speed to do, or even to estimate exactly how much work it would require. The proposal is to have a participatory grading of posts. To adapt the system better to each user, a user could select whose gradings he or she wanted to use as a filter. Perhaps people could select under which of one or more topics one wanted to assign a post, to create a more forum like data base under which users could rank posts, or even extract of posts. Hopefully, ultimately there would even be a participatory method for cutting out the most worth while parts of the most worth while posts and crafting them in to a forum in which the entries under each topic would be participatorily ranked by user selectable rankings. To keep it as simple as possible for the coder, I would suggest is that if you read a post you like, you could just forward it with a 0 to 10 ranking to the email address of a web site that had a script to record the ranking, from whom it came, and perhaps suggestions as to under what subject matter they should go. People who had less time to read the list could go to a page on that web site, paste in a string of email addresses (perhaps followed by a weight) and the number of posts he is willing to see for a given time period, and the page would generate a corresponding list of posts. If no name were pasted in the weighting would be over all people who had forwarded emails. One could also do the same under any topic for any selected time period. People viewing the emails through this filtering site would also be able to forward their rankings. This is a simple form of what I call the "intelligent forum" a web based participatory architecture which I developed in the early '90s. Obviously many more features could be added and the interface could be greatly improved. I have an over one hundred page description of the idea I wrote up in 2000. I have discussed this and other related ideas with some people at the MIT Center On Collective Intelligence and they have expressed an interest in seeing more about it. The problem with this system, as applied to our list, is it won't work well unless there are a reasonable number of good people willing to read and rank all the initial submissions. They will act as the initial gate keepers, and if they are only the trolls and the blowhards, the whole system would be a waste. Tell me what you think. And if any of you would be interested in doing the coding, ping me. Ed Porter P.S. I think human collective intelligence is going to be one of the most important technologies, if mankind, is to fare well in its transition through the worm-hole of the singularity to the trans-human future. Although a life-long Republican I have been very impressed by Barack Obama's very forward looking policy statements on technology, the internet, and how the internet can be used to make government more efficient and more democratic. In fact, July 28th I organized an Obama "Listening-to-America" platform meeting, which included intendees from the MIT Center on Collective Intelligence, Harvard's Berkman Center on Internet and Society, and Harvard's Kennedy School's Network Governance Group and which was moderated by the Berkman Center's Charles Nesson. ------------------------------------------- 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
