Ben, et al, Those who have been in the computer biz for more than just a few years know for a moral certainty that the difference between successful and failed projects very often lies in the feasibility study. Further, most of the largest computer debacles in history had early objectors on feasibility grounds, and these people were ignored.
Rubbing my own crystal ball (momentary pause for polishing), I think I see the future of AGI, and it goes something like this: Like so many other grossly under-funded efforts, the present efforts here will either fail, or be superseded by someone else's highly funded effort that borrows heavily from your work. My BIG concern is whether a failure here will poison other future efforts for decades to come, much as perceptrons and shallow parsing were poisoned. I believe that the following path that you are apparent on will be COMPLETELY disastrous, not only to your own efforts, but very likely to the entire future of AGI: 1. Fail to advance any substantial argument of feasibility. 2. Refuse to directly address various challenges on feasibility grounds advanced by others. 3. Completely cut off all feasibility discussion. 4. Fail for any of the countless reasons that have been discussed here on this forum, not to mention personal limitations (time, money, health, etc). Note here that it is VERY important that if you fail, that the failure NOT be directly attributable to AGI, but rather be to flaws in your particular approach. Hiding these flaws only dooms the future of AGI. The present format lays these bare and presents no such problems. If you do indeed cement this questionable path, AGI's only apparent long-term hope for success is that you fall into obscurity and are completely forgotten, not that I necessarily think that this will happen. Hopefully you can see that it is in no one's best interest to effectively present the world with a choice between you and AGI, which the decision you are now considering could do. Also, addressing Terren Suydam's comments, no potential investor would EVER give anyone a dime, who had cut off feasibility discussion. Such a decision will forever cut you off from future investment money, probably for everything that you will ever do, and hence doom your efforts to obscurity no matter how great your technical success might be. But, what the heck, these are all just feasibility arguments, and you want to cut these off. May I suggest that you ask people to put something like [agi feasibility] in their subject lines and allow things to otherwise continue as they are. Then, when you fail, it won't poison other AGI efforts. Perhaps Matt or someone would like to separately monitor those postings. Steve Richfield =============== On 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have been thinking a bit about the nature of conversations on this list. > > It seems to me there are two types of conversations here: > > 1) > Discussions of how to design or engineer AGI systems, using current > computers, according to designs that can feasibly be implemented by > moderately-sized groups of people > > 2) > Discussions about whether the above is even possible -- or whether it is > impossible because of weird physics, or poorly-defined special > characteristics of human creativity, or the so-called "complex systems > problem", or because AGI intrinsically requires billions of people and > quadrillions of dollars, or whatever > > Personally I am pretty bored with all the conversations of type 2. > > It's not that I consider them useless discussions in a grand sense ... > certainly, they are valid topics for intellectual inquiry. > > But, to do anything real, you have to make **some** decisions about what > approach to take, and I've decided long ago to take an approach of trying to > engineer an AGI system. > > Now, if someone had a solid argument as to why engineering an AGI system is > impossible, that would be important. But that never seems to be the case. > Rather, what we hear are long discussions of peoples' intuitions and > opinions in this regard. People are welcome to their own intuitions and > opinions, but I get really bored scanning through all these intuitions about > why AGI is impossible. > > One possibility would be to more narrowly focus this list, specifically on > **how to make AGI work**. > > If this re-focusing were done, then philosophical arguments about the > impossibility of engineering AGI in the near term would be judged **off > topic** by definition of the list purpose. > > Potentially, there could be another list, something like "agi-philosophy", > devoted to philosophical and weird-physics and other discussions about > whether AGI is possible or not. I am not sure whether I feel like running > that other list ... and even if I ran it, I might not bother to read it very > often. I'm interested in new, substantial ideas related to the in-principle > possibility of AGI, but not interested at all in endless philosophical > arguments over various peoples' intuitions in this regard. > > One fear I have is that people who are actually interested in building AGI, > could be scared away from this list because of the large volume of anti-AGI > philosophical discussion. Which, I add, almost never has any new content, > and mainly just repeats well-known anti-AGI arguments (Penrose-like physics > arguments ... "mind is too complex to engineer, it has to be evolved" ... > "no one has built an AGI yet therefore it will never be done" ... etc.) > > What are your thoughts on this? > > -- Ben > > > > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Jim Bromer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > >> > Actually, I think COMP=false is a perfectly valid subject for discussion >> on >> > this list. >> > >> > However, I don't think discussions of the form "I have all the answers, >> but >> > they're top-secret and I'm not telling you, hahaha" are particularly >> useful. >> > >> > So, speaking as a list participant, it seems to me this thread has >> probably >> > met its natural end, with this reference to proprietary weird-physics >> IP. >> > >> > However, speaking as list moderator, I don't find this thread so >> off-topic >> > or unpleasant as to formally kill the thread. >> > >> > -- Ben >> >> >> If someone doesn't want to get into a conversation with Colin about >> whatever it is that he is saying, then they should just exercise some >> self-control and refrain from doing so. >> >> I think Colin's ideas are pretty far out there. But that does not mean >> that he has never said anything that might be useful. >> >> My offbeat topic, that I believe that the Lord may have given me some >> direction about a novel approach to logical satisfiability that I am >> working on, but I don't want to discuss the details about the >> algorithms until I have gotten a chance to see if they work or not, >> was never intended to be a discussion about the theory itself. I >> wanted to have a discussion about whether or not a good SAT solution >> would have a significant influence on AGI, and whether or not the >> unlikely discovery of an unexpected breakthrough on SAT would serve as >> rational evidence in support of the theory that the Lord helped me >> with the theory. >> >> Although I am skeptical about what I think Colin is claiming, there is >> an obvious parallel between his case and mine. There are relevant >> issues which he wants to discuss even though his central claim seems >> to private, and these relevant issues may be interesting. >> >> Colin's unusual reference to some solid path which cannot be yet >> discussed is annoying partly because it so obviously unfounded. If he >> had the proof (or a method), then why isn't he writing it up (or >> working it out). A similar argument was made against me by the way, >> but the difference was that I never said that I had the proof or >> method. (I did say that you should get used to a polynomial time >> solution to SAT but I never said that I had a working algorithm.) >> >> My point is that even though people may annoy you with what seems like >> unsubstantiated claims, that does not disqualify everything they have >> said. That rule could so easily be applied to anyone who posts on that >> list. >> >> Jim Bromer >> >> >> ------------------------------------------- >> 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 RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
