I also agree the list should focus on specific approaches and not on hifalutin denials of achievability. I don't know why non-human, specifically electronic intelligence is such a hot button issue for some folks. It's like they'd be happier if it never happened. But why?
On 10/15/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a publicly accessible forum with searchable archives... you don't > necessarily have to be subscribed and inundated to find those nuggets. I > don't know any funding decision makers myself, but if I were in control of a > budget I'd be using every resource at my disposal to clarify my decision. If > I were considering Novamente for example I'd be looking for exactly the kind > of exchanges you and Richard Loosemore (for example) have had on the list, > to gain a better understanding of possible criticism, and because others may > be able to articulate such criticism far better than me. Obviously the same > goes for anyone else on the list who would look for funding... I'd want to > see you defend your ideas, especially in the absence of peer-reviewed > journals (something the JAGI hopes to remedy obv). > > Terren > > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 3:37 PM > > > Terren, > > I know a good number of VC's and government and private funding decision > makers... and believe me, **none** of them has remotely enough extra time to > wade through the amount of text that flows on this list, to find the nuggets > of real intellectual interest!!! > > > -- Ben G > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > One other important point... if I were a potential venture capitalist or > some other sort of funding decision-maker, I would be on this list and > watching the debate. I'd be looking for intelligent defense of (hopefully) > intelligent criticism to increase my confidence about the decision to fund. > This kind of forum also allows you to sort of advertise your approach to > those who are new to the game, particularly young folks who might one day be > valuable contributors, although I suppose that's possible in the more > tightly-focused forum as well. > > > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Terren Suydam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list > To: > [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, October 15, 2008, 11:29 AM > > > > Hi Ben, > > > I think that the current focus has its pros and cons and the more narrowed > focus you suggest would have *its* pros and cons. As you said, the con of > the current focus is the boring repetition of various anti positions. But > the pro of allowing that stuff is for those of us who use the conflict among > competing viewpoints to clarify our own positions and gain insight. Since > you seem to be fairly clear about your own viewpoint, it is for you a > situation of diminishing returns (although I will point out that a recent > blog post of yours on the subject of play was inspired, I think, by > a point Mike Tintner made, who is probably the most obvious target of your > frustration). > > For myself, I have found tremendous value here in the debate (which probably > says a lot about the crudeness of my philosophy). I have had many new > insights and discovered > some false assumptions. If you narrowed the focus, I would probably leave > (I am not offering that as a reason not to do it! :-) I would be > disappointed, but I would understand if that's the decision you made. > > > Finally, although there hasn't been much novelty among the debate (from your > perspective, anyway), there is always the possibility that there will be. > This seems to be the only public forum for AGI discussion out there (are > there others, anyone?), so presumably there's a good chance it would show up > here, and that is good for you and others actively involved in AGI research. > > > Best, > Terren > > > --- On Wed, 10/15/08, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [agi] META: A possible re-focusing of this list > To: [email protected] > > Date: Wednesday, > October 15, 2008, 11:01 AM > > > 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 > > | Modify > Your Subscription > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agi | Archives > > | Modify > Your Subscription > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > agi | Archives > > | Modify > Your Subscription > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > > | Modify > Your Subscription > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > 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/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
